RE: Do SCs need to be testable?

How would such guidelines which are NOT requirements be utilized at a later date in something like Section 508?  Creating things that to me feel very much like triple A SC(s) makes sense, as they don't apply all the time but only in certain situations.  I'm still trying to understand the extension vs triple A difference, other than these extensions are past the release date of WCAG 2.0.





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

DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
202-447-0440 (voice)
202-447-0582 (fax)
202-447-5857 (TTY)
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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:30 PM
To: Joshue O Connor
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: Do SCs need to be testable?




Thanks Josh,


> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> This brings up a question .  What are via alternatives to creating SCs? Without the SC approach, would it merely result a tranche of new techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that might be an alternative?
> 


I think the alternative would be to have guidelines and examples. 

The guidelines do not need to be testable - but set a goal.

The examples show how it can be done.   

The idea would be to go beyond what you can require   because requiring something means it must be testable and apply everywhere.  And there are so many good ideas that don't match these two requirements and therefore don't get recorded. 

Also - trying to get more things required will get much push back from industry.   And for some reason they are very against things that relate to what they view as 'usability' - which is much or all of cognitive disability.     The are very much FOR it in design - but not for it being required.   The way to ride that - is to create a great manual on how to do it - but avoid making SC or requirements because    a) it will then be resisted and diminished   b) you will have to leave out - or diminish yourself -  so many good ideas because they can't be SC and if you have a few SC and mostly not- the mostly not (which will most of the great stuff) will be second class citizens in your own document. 



Gregg 




> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> TTBOMK, any new success criterion must be testable. If not, it's a clear departure from the original WCAG requirements framework. If we do need to depart from the framework (for whatever reason) - then we cannot call these new SCs success criteria. We'd need to come up with something else. I'm only making an objective statement here, and not making any value judgement.
> 
> This brings up a question relating to one of Greggs comments (and thanks Gregg for your very helpful input). What are via alternatives to creating SCs? Without the SC approach, would it merely result a tranche of new techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that might be an alternative?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 12:47:07 UTC