Re: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

Hi GreggI think we need to qualify this that, in your opinion, we can not change the restrictions on an SC. When we discussed this at the last FTF the group choice was that we can change them in the extensions. As this is a group based on consensus i think that the W3C process is that that decision should stand unless the consensus changes.


If the chairs feel that we need to reopen the discussion then I will be happy to add points to I think it is better to keep the same turms even if the restrictions are altered in the extensions. Otherwise I would table this for now. We both want to change the wording, where we can, to make it testable and  widely applicable, but without compromising quality of the advice given.


Just to remind me. If there are testable sufficient techniques does that make the criteria testable?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:01:43 +0200 Gregg Vanderheiden<gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote ---- 


On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:46 PM, lisa.seeman <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