RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

Hi Lisa,

I agree with all you stated.

One more thing is we should consider how to make it “trainable”.

I spend an inordinate amount of time going through all the supporting documents to create training material for all these guidelines. Developers do not have the time to sift through pages and pages of material to try to understand how to do their job to make pages/code compliant.

Things should be simple enough that with little time all that use our material can understand “what do I need to do”. Even the “how to meet” sections are hard to follow at times.

We are often working with abstract concepts that apply to various technologies that in the end need to have someone understand them and apply them.

Best,

Alan


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Thad C
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:03 PM
To: lisa.seeman
Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl
Subject: Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

Hi Lisa,
I whole heartedly agree with the sentiment and vision of the last six points. While, yes they are not acceptance criteria it would be great to have these stated as part of a vision statement, mission or intention.
Best
Thadde6
On May 26, 2016 8:50 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
Hi


I would like to propose the following as acceptance criteria for new success criteria or for changes to existing success criteria:
1. Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies such as HTML, CSS, SVG etc
2. Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear such that most experts will agree if a success criteria has been met. 
3. Utilize the WCAG 2.0 A/AA/AAA structure.

Further, we aim to should provide the following supporting material by the time we go to CR.
1. Identify who benefits from accessible content (such as people with cognitive limitations such as an low short term memory)
2. Outline (but not necessarily complete) one supporting technique for each success criteria
 
I do not think this should be  acceptance criteria but,  where possible and _without_ compromising accessibility,  we should also: 
1. Write it with ease of use in mind
2. Success criteria should be potentially machine testable in the future 
3. Consider and document ideas for authoring tools to reduce the author burden 
4. Write to a diverse audience
5. Try to make it "forward compatible"
6. Try to make it fit under the current principles and, where possible, guidelines.


Note that most of these terms are further discussed at https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter