Re[2]: Method for minting new Success Criteria

Thanks Srinivasu and Allen:

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 [...]

This is a big advantage to adhering to only minting new SCs as needed, 
in preference to some new mechanism(s).

Thanks

Josh


------ Original Message ------
From: "Srinivasu Chakravarthula" <srinivasu.chakravarthula@deque.com>
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
Cc: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>; "Wayne Dick" 
<wayneedick@gmail.com>; "Joshue O Connor" <josh@interaccess.ie>; "WCAG" 
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 02/11/2015 13:56:29
Subject: 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
>Hand phone: +91 709 380 3855
>
>Deque University | Follow me on Twitter | Connect on LinkedIn | About 
>Me
>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>CanAdaptSolutions Inc.
>>
>>Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>>LinkedIn
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>