Re: COGA supplement to WCAG 2.1

I think it is a good strategy.

What you create would not have SC in it then — but just good practice.  If you have SC then they are by definition ‘criteria’ and would have to meet the same tests as SC in WCAG.  

What to call them in the Best Practices doc is a question.    can’t call them Criteria.   
 Calling the Guidelines would also be confusing because that is the name of WCAG.


thoughts anyone?  


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 24, 2017, at 1:55 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Folks
> 
> On tomorrows WCAG call we will probably discuss a proposal to publish a supplement to WCAG 2.1 that has additional information and recommendations for COGA. We could then:
> 
> Add important pillers of accessibility to wcag 2.1 so that conforming to wcag 2.1 help cognitive accessibility
> Put more details and full inclusion into a supplement that would not be as  restricted by the WCAG's process and acceptance criteria
> 
> Does that sound like a good change?
> 
> I think it gives us the ability to write a full guidance on what to do to include coga use groups for though who want that guidance and still have an impact on WCAG.
> 
> Also I am looking for some volunteers to help work out if these change impact what SC's we should put into WCAG
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
>