Re: Method for minting new Success Criteria

Hi,
I think the answer to this question is yes.  We are talking about needs
that were missed in the first iteration 2.0.  We want the new criteria to
carry the same legitimacy of the original criteria. The WCAG 2.0 process
was very credible and objectively good. In all human processes there are
oversights, but serious critics don't fault WCAG WG on their process or
even the outcomes. We just need to fill in missing criteria with the same
care used in the original process.

Wayne

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The question has come up 'Do we need to follow the same form as WCAG with
> our extensions success criteria'? A possible method would be to map
> suggested COGA (and other groups) current new SCs (as techniques) to
> existing WCAG success criteria. And if we find that some don’t easily map
> to an existing SC, then that could represent a gap – and therefore the need
> for a new SC.
>
> Therefore one path which could help us to troubleshoot this whole thing
> would be to see all current or proposed SCs – as techniques, then work
> backwards from there.
>
> Another way, is to try to flip any suggested SC into a testable statement.
> If that can't be done, then its likely a technique that can fit an existing
> SC.
>
> Comments, brickbats welcome.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>