W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Re[2]: SC Managers and success criteria review

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:34:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYN0KFYjmOu43DRqU6X_TVmjMJc6z4MUGYRPWTSyS8qkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Lisa

I believe there are 2 categories of requirements.

"Success Criteria shall:"

and

"Success Criteria should:"

My understand is that the "Shall" requirements are "must" have, and the
"should" statements are guidance. The sentence you quote is above the
entire requirements section, not on the "shall" section. I don't understand
why we would have a "shall" section and a "should" section if they are
*all* supposed to be "should" statements. However, I defer to the the
minutes and chairs for the final on this.


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 Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi David
> It is also worth noting that these requirements were agreed on as guidance
> only  (At least that is what I remember)
>
>  "These requirements are provided as guidance to the WCAG Working
> Group...."
>
> If you want to use them as blanket acceptance criteria I think that needs
> to go though a consensus process.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:52:38 +0200 *David
> MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca <david100@sympatico.ca>>* wrote ----
>
> That's right Joshue.
>
>  Any member who assumes it is a group consensus may not have been reading
> our emails or following the group discussion sufficiently, and since this
> is a group list I think it is important for members to follow along.
>
> I also think its important for members to take initiative and not feel
> intimidated to jump in and start working... so we can meet the Feb 23 First
> Public working draft deadline that the group has forced upon itself.
>
> The consensus on whether an SC passes the acceptance criteria would come
> from the surveys where these acceptance criteria would be polled from each
> member.
>
> Lisa these are short names for the conformance acceptance criteria ... so
> yes, they are the same.
>
> I have said "yes" for one that I am reasonably sure there will be
> consensus on. Otherwise I left them blank, waiting for the group's opinion,
> because I could not make a determination. It is not an indication of "fail"
> it is just that I cannot say that I believe words like "clearly" and
> "easily" are testable. The group may come to consensus on this, but they
> are huge changes ...
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie
> > wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for coming up with this way of looking at/presenting the candidate
> SCs, these suggestions are helpful and will be useful for this next
> important phase.
> We are a little concerned that the estimations recorded in this
> spreadsheet, such as in 'Details',  may be perceived as the consensus of
> the group.  We  believe that this is not your intention, and that you wish
> to help the work progress but it could be perceived by others as
> representing group consensus.
>
> So while we are happy for you to share your opinion, we urge working group
> members to not view this spreadsheet as being the 'current state of
> consensus' regarding these issues and to make sure they look at each
> proposal with a critical eye, to help the group arrive at the best success
> criteria it can.
>
> Many thanks (as always) for your enthusiasm and efforts.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh/AWK
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:35:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC