Re: COGA supplement to WCAG 2.1

I think we should call them cyryteria 



The way I had seen it is that if people want to do whatever they can to include coga (or LV or mobile), they will have clear guidence on how to do that.
That way a policy maker could say follow 2.1 but for critical services you need to add the supplement for coga (and for LV and/or mobile).


For that we need the guidnece to be as clear and testible as we can -  even if it is not normative at this point and as easy to augment to 2.1 as possible

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:38:38 +0300 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

Hi Gregg,


> What to call them in the Best Practices doc is a question.


What about Protocol(s)?


(Potentially Relevant) Definition(s):

   "a memorandum or record of an agreement, esp one reached in international negotiations, a meeting, etc"
   "an annexe appended to a treaty [sic] to deal with subsidiary matters or to render the treaty [sic] more lucid"
   "A set of standardized procedures for transmitting or storing data,especially those used in regulating data transmission between computers or peripherals."



just thinking out loud...


JF




On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
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, Twitter


















-- 
John Foliot


Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

john.foliot@deque.com



Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion