Re: Method for minting new Success Criteria

I completely agree. That would be rather easy to sensitize awareness to
community to use than new SCs

I would also agree that it would be difficult to get law updated across the
world.
Thanks,
Srini

Best regards,

*Srinivasu Chakravarthula*
Sr. Accessibility Consultant, *Deque* <http://deque.com>
Hand phone: +91 709 380 3855

Deque University <http://dequeuniversity.com> | Follow me on Twitter
<http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu> | Connect on LinkedIn
<http://linkedin.com/in/srinivasuc> | About Me <http://about.me/srinivasuc>

Technology is a gift to everyone; let's create inclusive digital experience

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
wrote:

> Mapping them to existing SC(s) as sufficient techniques or failures makes
> sense, but creating supplement SC(s) will not make them normative in legal
> frameworks which connect to the guidelines at a point in time only, not
> this and forward.
>
>
>
>
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 7:38 PM
> *To:* Wayne Dick
> *Cc:* Joshue O Connor; WCAG
> *Subject:* Re: Method for minting new Success Criteria
>
>
>
> I think as much as possible we should try to map our findings into the
> existing WCAG which is required by law in many jurisdictions. It will be
> difficult to get jurisdictions to "update" their requirements, but
> addressing them in the existing WCAG will automatically pull them in. As
> long as we can map them to existing SCs
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *CanAdapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I think the answer to this question is yes.  We are talking about needs
> that were missed in the first iteration 2.0.  We want the new criteria to
> carry the same legitimacy of the original criteria. The WCAG 2.0 process
> was very credible and objectively good. In all human processes there are
> oversights, but serious critics don't fault WCAG WG on their process or
> even the outcomes. We just need to fill in missing criteria with the same
> care used in the original process.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The question has come up 'Do we need to follow the same form as WCAG with
> our extensions success criteria'? A possible method would be to map
> suggested COGA (and other groups) current new SCs (as techniques) to
> existing WCAG success criteria. And if we find that some don’t easily map
> to an existing SC, then that could represent a gap – and therefore the need
> for a new SC.
>
> Therefore one path which could help us to troubleshoot this whole thing
> would be to see all current or proposed SCs – as techniques, then work
> backwards from there.
>
> Another way, is to try to flip any suggested SC into a testable statement.
> If that can't be done, then its likely a technique that can fit an existing
> SC.
>
> Comments, brickbats welcome.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>