Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines

Hi Lisa

talking about lists in the abstract makes it kind of hard 
but in general - lists should not be used in standards unless it is known that there are ONLY  X  items that this will ever apply to.

The SC should be technology agnostic —so naming things specifically in an SC is often a problem there too. 

The whole ADA is now said by many to not apply to the web since there was just a list of examples and stores was one of them but it was described as a brick and mortar store — so web stores are felt (by many including judges) to not be included.    If they had used more generic terms like     “places that people get public services from and carry out commerce “    or some such   the problem would not have arisen.


The solution to getting rid of lists is not to list each item separately but to find out what the criteria were for you including them (and excluding everything else) from the list in the first place — and then using that instead of the list. 



RE Notes — 
 - notes are informative.   Deleting them should (must) not change the meaning or scope of the SC at all — or else they are not notes  (are not informative )   



gregg

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 10:39 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> We can have no lists at all and have a 100 new SC's  - but that just makes it harder to use. I think we agreed that that is not good. So minimizing (to 0)  is a very bad idea. 
> 
>  Clearly no one wants redundant or unnecessary list items, and we all want it to be as easy to use as possible, so this guidance will just make for arguments later on when people try and get rid of list items that we need.
> 
> Can we put this back on the agenda for the call next week?
> 
> 
> We also did not agree on "Do not require the use of "notes""
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 17:31:41 +0300 Andrew Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote ---- 
> Lisa,
> I’m not sure that I would agree that there was full agreement that lists are needed.  You presented a situation where there was a long list of items and I think that the group acknowledged that there may be other ways to handle a long list (e.g. Breaking into different SC, for example) but also acknowledged that we don’t want to make an outright prohibition on the use of lists.
> 
> I think that the general feeling is that putting items into lists adds confusion to the SC, so we should minimize the use of lists to just situations where it is really necessary.
> 
> I believe that the current language supports this:
> Minimize the use of lists and when necessary numbered lists are preferred to more easily allow referencing specific items
> Do you agree?
> 
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
> 
> From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 21:53
> To: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
> 
> That depends on the list. We went over some of the proposed sc on the call two weeks ago so that the group could see why sometimes lists are needed. There seemed to be full agreement that in practice they are needed
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:59:52 +0300 Gregg Vanderheiden<gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote ----
> 
> very nice
> 
> one more thought.     SC should not use lists for what to include or exclude.  They should have descriptions that allow a person to determine what they apply to or not if at all possible.  New things come up every day that need to be included or excluded.   And lists in SC won’t address them.  
> 
> gregg
> 
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday’s call the Working Group did not get to discuss the best practice guidelines, but we wanted to get discussion going on the list.  The survey where we started the discussion on this is https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21/results <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/reqsWCAG21/results>.
> 
> ==start==
> Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
> 
> For the Working Group to accept a candidate success criterion, they need to fit within the overall structure. The following are guidelines that will help the Working Group efficiently process suggested SC:
> Ensure that the criteria is written as simply as possible. SC are better when they:
> Are short in length
> Minimize the use of lists and when necessary numbered lists are preferred to more easily allow referencing specific items
> Do not require the use of "notes" (Notes are regarded as Normative in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1)
> Avoid jargon and unnecesarily complex language.
> When utilizing a glossary term (or adding a glossary term) the SC needs to make sense when the defined term is replaced with the full glossary definition.
> The SC can be summarized into a simple language sentence that describes its theme
> ==end==
> 
> Please provide any comments/suggestions.
> 
> Thanks,
> AWK
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
> 
>