Re: Method for minting new Success Criteria

Hi Allen

 I think the Success Criteria describe a state of being... over time the
conditions which cause that state of being can shift to a certain degree.
For instance, as AT gets smarter, we found it not necessary to fail layout
tables, just recently we made a major change that allowed the title
attribute or aria label to be an alternative for an image instead of alt
text.

To me mapping to existing success criteria should be our first line of
investigation and only after a thorough exploration of that should we
consider new Success Criteria inside an extension.

We want to make the existing WCAG as robust and modern as possible and
leverage it's place in legislation etc...

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
wrote:

> Mapping them to existing SC(s) as sufficient techniques or failures makes
> sense, but creating supplement SC(s) will not make them normative in legal
> frameworks which connect to the guidelines at a point in time only, not
> this and forward.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Allen Hoffman*
>
> Deputy Executive Director
>
> The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
>
> Department of Homeland Security
>
> 202-447-0503 (voice)
>
> allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov
>
>
>
> DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
>
> 202-447-0440 (voice)
>
> 202-447-0582 (fax)
>
> 202-447-5857 (TTY)
>
> accessibility@dhs.gov
>
>
>
> *This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and
> state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and
> legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the
> sender and delete this message.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 7:38 PM
> *To:* Wayne Dick
> *Cc:* Joshue O Connor; WCAG
> *Subject:* Re: Method for minting new Success Criteria
>
>
>
> I think as much as possible we should try to map our findings into the
> existing WCAG which is required by law in many jurisdictions. It will be
> difficult to get jurisdictions to "update" their requirements, but
> addressing them in the existing WCAG will automatically pull them in. As
> long as we can map them to existing SCs
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *CanAdapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>