Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria

Are we expected to have all this done by december 1st?

Specifically must we have written up:

A description of what the intent of the SC is, including what users benefit from the content successfully addressing it.
Clear information about how the proposal will benefit users, along with justification and evidence of the benefits.
Description of how this SC can be tested.
Possible technique titles which could be used to satisfy the SC (just the title).
?


In other words, we can easily supply the link to the background research, but it will be realy tough to get this written up on different pages by December, as well as double checking we have the ideal SC wording


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 01:59:57 +0300 Katie Haritos-Shea<ryladog@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

Good point Gregg!
 Katie Haritos-Shea
 703-371-5545
 
On Aug 2, 2016 6:05 PM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
Very good

Suggest in #1 that  you list the whole original followed by the edited one as you indicate.  However I would make the changes bold as well. 




Only other thing we had was that we required that any SC have sufficient techniques defined for it before we moved forward.  (this is NOT required to submit one for the group to consider — but it WAS before we would consider an SC to be reasonable and implementable.  (We often found that we needed to edit the SC after we tried to apply it - and develop sufficient techniques to meet it.)






 
gregg 
 
On Aug 2, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

    Group,
 The WCAG group also reviewed proposed criteria for proposals for new or changed SCs for WCAG 2.1.
 
 
 These criteria are more of a checklist for task forces submitting proposals and provides details of what the WG is looking for in order to have enough information to review proposals. If pieces are missing, proposals will be returned to the submitter for completion prior to being resubmitted.
 
 
 The criteria are:
  Each proposed SC is provided on its own page, and that page (location of the page TBD, likely on GitHub) contains:
  The SC text  If suggesting a wording change to an existing success criteria, write the complete SC text and indicate the changes by surrounding new text with "@@". For example (just an example), "1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of @@text, images of text, and icons@@ has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following: (Level AA)".
 
Indication of any suggested glossary definitions or changes.
What Principle and Guideline it falls within.
A description of what the intent of the SC is, including what users benefit from the content successfully addressing it.
Clear information about how the proposal will benefit users, along with justification and evidence of the benefits.
Description of how this SC can be tested.
Possible technique titles which could be used to satisfy the SC (just the title).
 
 
 
 
 
 Please comment if you feel like something on this list needs to be changed/clarified, and if you think that other items are needed and should be added to the list.
 
 
   Thanks,
 AWK
 
 
 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
 Adobe 
 
 
 akirkpat@adobe.com
 http://twitter.com/awkawk