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

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

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:26:08 +0200
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15918538f40.affc865872509.6518100827840020120@zoho.com>

Hi David


We added the text "These requirements are provided as guidance" before the list  to highlight that they are all guidence only






All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:34:58 +0200 David MacDonald&lt;david100@sympatico.ca&gt; wrote ---- 

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 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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



 
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, lisa.seeman &lt;lisa.seeman@zoho.com&gt; wrote:
Hi DavidIt 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, Twitter





---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:52:38 +0200 David MacDonald&lt;david100@sympatico.ca&gt; 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 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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



 
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM, josh@interaccess.ie &lt;josh@interaccess.ie&gt; 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 Monday, 19 December 2016 18:26:49 UTC

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