Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria

Good point Gregg!

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Aug 2, 2016 6:05 PM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
wrote:

> Very good
>
> Suggest in #1 that  you list the whole original followed by the edited one
> as you indicate.  However I would make the changes bold as well.
>
>
> Only other thing we had was that we *required* that any SC have
> sufficient techniques defined for it before we moved forward.  (this is NOT
> required to submit one for the group to consider — but it WAS before we
> would consider an SC to be reasonable and implementable.  (We often found
> that we needed to edit the SC after we tried to apply it - and develop
> sufficient techniques to meet it.)
>
>
>
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Group,
> The WCAG group also reviewed proposed criteria for proposals for new or
> changed SCs for WCAG 2.1.
>
> These criteria are more of a checklist for task forces submitting
> proposals and provides details of what the WG is looking for in order to
> have enough information to review proposals. If pieces are missing,
> proposals will be returned to the submitter for completion prior to being
> resubmitted.
>
> The criteria are:
> Each proposed SC is provided on its own page, and that page (location of
> the page TBD, likely on GitHub) contains:
>
>    1. The SC text
>       - If suggesting a wording change to an existing success criteria,
>       write the complete SC text and indicate the changes by surrounding new text
>       with "@@". For example (just an example), "1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The
>       visual presentation of @@text, images of text, and icons@@ has a
>       contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following: (Level AA)".
>    2. Indication of any suggested glossary definitions or changes.
>    3. What Principle and Guideline it falls within.
>    4. A description of what the intent of the SC is, including what users
>    benefit from the content successfully addressing it.
>    5. Clear information about how the proposal will benefit users, along
>    with justification and evidence of the benefits.
>    6. Description of how this SC can be tested.
>    7. Possible technique titles which could be used to satisfy the SC
>    (just the title).
>
>
>
> Please comment if you feel like something on this list needs to be
> changed/clarified, and if you think that other items are needed and should
> be added to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>