RE: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

Strategically I think assembling the “guidance” for this area, carefully working through testability scenarios, sufficient techniques, failures, etc is great and could be shared even in less than SC condition.  I do think each item should be measured periodically as far as progress towards meeting the requirements for success criteria, e.g. the testability, use of accessibility supported methods and programmatically determinable options, etc.  This would help once a clear maturity metric was created to monitor work for people moving forward.  There are definitely things that can be done to improve accessibility that may not rise “yet” to a “standard”, but monitoring of such in-progress work is something that should be considered so as not to miss opportunities down the road.



Allen Hoffman
Deputy Executive Director
The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
Department of Homeland Security
202-447-0503 (voice)
allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov<mailto:allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>

DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
202-447-0440 (voice)
202-447-0582 (fax)
202-447-5857 (TTY)
accessibility@dhs.gov<mailto:accessibility@dhs.gov>

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.  Thank you.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:02 AM
To: lisa.seeman
Cc: Laura Carlson; Joshue O Connor; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement


On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:46 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:

Hi Gregg

When I met with WCAG (I think it was at the last FTF) it was agreed that we could change these rules/restrictions in the extensions. If WCAG decide to go back on that then we should have that as a separate and serious discussion. (Personally I thought the decision was the right  one.)


Oh I agree.

but you can’t use the old terminology (e.g. Success Criteria) if you want to use new rules.   Or rather - you can’t redefine the meaning of those terms.

You also won’t be able to use “conformance” if you don’t have testable criteria that a person can use to ‘conform’  (i.e.  testable so they can know when they have conformed — and someone else can test and they will come up with the same conclusion)


But as per the last email,  I don’t think you need to use SC or conformance in this document.  And I think you will create a much more useful one if you don’t.      Get this document with all of its ideas, techniques and advice out for those who want to make things more cognitively accessible.      THEN loop back and look to see what might be in the testable SC (not testable techniques - but SC) category.


PS  I predict (hope I am wrong but I predict) that you will find it very difficult and have many arguments even amongst the group as you try to find things that would qualify as SC.      I personally think we need to make more ground on creating better AT that can use the “programmatically determined “provisions in the current WCAG to take content and re-present it in different formats for the wide range of people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities.


best

Gregg