Re[3]: What should we do with a long success criteria?

------ Original Message ------
From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
[...]
Subject: Re: Re: What should we do with a long success criteria?

[Chair hat off]

Very interesting thread, and thanks to all for input. I think Greggs 
comment about stuffing an SC with too many provisions is something we 
really need to remember when drafting SCs. While it seems like it is 
going to create more potential SCs, I'd rather see more with clearer 
requirments rather than fewer that are stuffed with too much and 
difficult to satisfy.

>
>Another, maybe clearer option, is to allow separate techniques for each 
>itemized item.
>(Each list item will have a separate number anyway)
>This would have the effect of making them act like separate success 
>criteria whilst grouping them together
I like this idea.
>
>
>It really comes down to do we want to group them together. I think it 
>makes them easier to implement and follow.
Totally.

Also in terms of the original question around how to frame the SC if it 
is too long, it seems to me to outline only a single 'clause' in each 
point:

3.3.3 Instructions, labels, navigation and important information are 
provided with a clear writing style that includes:§
(simple text version: Use a clear writing style)

An easy to understand tense and voice. <del>Please refer to the 
exemptions for changes for a defined scope such as a different location 
or language.<del> The main task of each page is clarified though the 
presentation, main heading and page title. <del>Extraneous information 
is separated or progmatically determinable.</del> Use short clear 
sentences with a maximum of one conjunction and two commas.  Choose 
words that are in general use (and appropriate) for the context. 
<del>Use word or phrase from the most commonly used 3000 words, unless 
this will result in a loss of meaning. Note we may change the 
number</del>. Avoid hyphenated words and acronyms unless they are the 
common form to refer to the concept. 
-http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/bibs/vocab/cup.html Clearly 
differentiate between facts and less substantiated opinions. Was 
rewritten from "Clearly differentiate between opinions and facts " (I 
don't think this could be an SC btw). Reduce ambiguities by:<I think the 
following sounds like a technique btw, and not an SC - calling it reduce 
ambiguities may be sufficient>metaphors and non-literal text are not 
used or can be automatically replaced via an easy to set user setting 
and standardized technique. All meaning must be retained when 
non-literal text are replaced. identifying each step in instructions, 
using specific and concrete wording in instructions, the meaning of each 
word should be clear from the word's context, or programmatically 
determinable. On controls, links and buttons use words that identify 
their function. <again the rest of this sounds like a technique) 
Function can be the default term used for the function on the user 
platform or the function of the button or link (such as "search" in 
place of "go") or the destination of a link (such as "home" or "contact 
us") In menus with sub menus: the text of each main menu item is easy to 
understand. each sub menu item is clearly associated with the main menu 
item under which it falls (This can be due being an industry or platform 
default) Double negatives are not used A summary is provided. For pieces 
of content with less then 200 words the heading may act as a summary.
HTH

Josh


>
>
>
>All the best
>
>Lisa Seeman
>
>LinkedIn, Twitter
>
>
>
>
>---- On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 23:18:57 +0300 Jonathan Avila 
><jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote ----
>> > finally, you can’t do sufficient techniques for an SC like this 
>>unless the technique would satisfy all of the parts (which won’t be 
>>true for any technique I know of)
>>
>>In the current WCAG understanding docs there are some places where it 
>>says follow one of these techniques AND one from a list -- see sc 
>>3.3.2.
>>
>>Also sc 3.3.1 says for situation A use this and for situation B do 
>>this and techniques are listed and then there is another technique 
>>list.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden 
>><gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > finally, you can’t do sufficient techniques for an SC like this 
>>unless the technique would satisfy all of the parts (which won’t be 
>>true for any technique I know of)
>
>