Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

Our original language for testable was 8 out of 10 experts would agree.
This would be an inter reliability ratting of 0.8 out of 1.0.

WCAG 2 is a success. It is the only standard which has been accepted across
jurisdictions and it is the foundation for jurisdictions who have decided
to go their own way.

I think a 2.1 does not need to redefine testable. A high inter reliability
rating. Personalization is powerful, but it is in it's infancy and I don't
see currently how we we could require it in a 2.1. If there was a framework
ready to go, available, and inexpensive to implement, I would say "yes"
let's require it.

However, we may be able to require a smaller subset of personalization and
identify perhaps things like not over riding the users ability to choose
colour schemes with their AT or browser, or OS. etc...

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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 Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Michael Pluke <
Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> I fully agree with your thoughts.
>
>
>
> I think the questions that arise from this is are:
>
>
>
> -        “are there ways that W3C start to define the “WCAG-like
> specifications” that you refer to?” and;
>
> -        “how can these specifications be seen as in some way a part of
> WCAG to be used where there is personalization support that can be used to
> activate the features specified by these “WCAG-like specifications”?”
>
>
>
> I think the question of what personalization framework is ultimately
> employed (e.g. GPII or some other alternative) is separate from the
> question of how the aboce specifications get defined and standardised.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
> *Sent:* 01 June 2016 15:52
> *To:* Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>; josh@interaccess.ie;
> Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Patrick Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com
> <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 1, 2016 7:48 AM
>
> Does anyone much more experienced than I in how to make things work in
> WCAG see a way forward to achieve such a powerful ideal?
>
>
>
> I’ve thought about it.
>
>
>
> I think there’s an important and fundamental place for a broadly
> applicable specification such as WCAG in an era of personalization. For
> example, if, for privacy reasons, a user does not declare any access
> needs/preferences, then a default version of the content must be provided;
> but that version should still be generally accessible. WCAG defines the
> characteristics which this generally accessible version should have – a
> form of the content which is accessible, but not specialized to the needs
> of a specific user.
>
>
>
> There is a real and practical need for such a general standard. Some
> content developers may not be able to support personalization; some users
> may have a legitimate reason to ensure that their access needs are not
> disclosed to a Web application or communitcated to the organization that
> operates it.
>
>
>
> I think there is also scope for standards that define formal vocabularies
> for expressing user needs/preferences, mechanisms for providing them to
> applications, and the appropriate responses that applications should make
> to the declared requirements of a user given a set of needs/preferences.
> This last category lies within the scope of WCAG-like specifications. If a
> user declares a need for linguistic/comprehension support, how should an
> application respond, for example? What are the appropriate implementation
> strategies that extend beyond general accessibility requirements?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>