Re: COGA SC rewrite

These are all worded as commands.
  To be a success criteria it needs to be a statement of fact that can be true or false.  

I reworded the items below to show what an SC would look like

Also listed  questions or issues with them where they were not defined or objective / testable. 


> On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Based on some discussion in the last thread on SCs being testable (and EAs comments about having the time to do this work..), I had a crack at turning the current suggested list of COGA SCs into more 'testable' language.
> 
> Comments, brickbats etc welcome.
> 
> Josh
> 
> Success Criterion.  
> 1. Enable adaptability: Ensure that all UI components can be resized,re-ordered or removed.
Adaptability:
All UI components can be resized, reordered or removed.

QUESTION/ISSUE:  How can you remove all of the components from the page and have it still be “equivalent”.   For example, if you remove the “submit” button — the page becomes non-functional.      What does ‘can be removed” mean?    Can be removed but you break the page - and that is ok? 




>   
> 2. Timed events: The controls for expanding or canceling any timed events are discoverable, clear and focusable.

This one is in the right format
> JOC: I’m not sure if this can be a SC. There is an existing SC that covers this (2.2.1) there could be a requirement to do it in a way that is customizable via some user preference? 
QUESTION/ISSUE:  need to define discoverable.   what does it mean?    what is good enough?   
QUESTION/ISSUE:  clear is not objective or definable objectively

>  
> 3. Structure content: Use a clear heading structure and/or mark up suitable page regions and sections.
> JOC: Not sure if this can be a new SC. 1.3.1 obviously relevant here.

3. Structure content: Heading structure is clear and/or mark up of suitable page regions and sections is done.

QUESTION/ISSUE:  Same issue with the word CLEAR,  and  SUITABLE 
>  
> 4. Visual affordances: Use a common/established visual/symbolic toolkit to describe the function of various UI components. 

4. Visual affordances: A common/established visual/symbolic toolkit is used to describe the function of various UI components.

QUESTION/ISSUE:   COMMON,  ESTABLISHED are not defined  /  objective. 

> 5. Use a clear writing style:
> JOC: Very hard to test, context dependent.

Writing style is clear

QUESTION/ISSUE:   CLEAR is not defined  /  objective / reliably measurable.   How clear is clear?  to who? etc. . 


>  
> 6. Alternative preference: If an accessible alternative is present, ensure that it is discoverable and has a high level of visual affordance.
>  
> 7. Be predictable:
> JOC: Don’t know if this can be a new SC.

This asks a person to behave a certain way.       It needs to be a statement about the 

QUESTION/ISSUE:   PREDICTABLE is not defined  /  objective / reliably measurable.   How predictable is predictable enough?  to who? etc. .  


>  
> 8. Rapid feedback: Provide feedback quickly and within the context of use. 

Feedback is provided quickly and within context of use

who quick is quickly.    what does context of use mean exactly.    context can be as broad as within the same time period to within a particular general or specific task?     How specific do we mean 
> 
> 9. Help the user understand the content
> JOC: Don’t know of that can be an SC. Hard to test.

In WCAG we found that an author cannot do anything with or to a user.   The statements need to be about the page and testable by looking at the page.   There is no way to test something that requires you to do something for all users.   (unless it is only necessary to do this for one particular user to pass) 


>  
> 10. Complete and check: Provide an accessible ‘check and complete’ mechanism for your page content.
And accessible “check and complete” mechanism is provided for page content. 


Not sure what this is?   Need to define ‘accessible’ concretely and measurably — and then say what measure is good enough.  


>  
>  11. Attention aid: Provide an accessible help mechanism in order to focus the users attention on the task at hand to ensure completion.
> 
> 

 Attention aid:  An accessible help mechanism is provided that focuses the users attention on the task at hand to ensure completion.

Actually that doesnt work either.   We are talking about focussing the user’s attention.   the author does not know what will focus each users’s attention. 

Maybe 
 Attention aid:  An accessible help mechanism is provided.  

hmmm that is too broad

QUESTION / ISSUE :    accessible isnt defined.  (and it can be conformance to this guideline — or else it is circular) 
QUESTION / ISSUE :   what is meant by ‘a help system that focuses
QUESTION / ISSUE :  which user,   users?    all users?    how does an author test that all users will be focused by their mechanism ?    How does he/she  ENSURE this will happen?