- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:18:21 +0000
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- CC: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Michael Cooper wrote: > I've been thinking of the "pillars" as success criteria.... [but] they do indeed look more like guidelines than SC... But the problem with guidelines is, we have to have SC under them. I think we need things that are specific 'checks' but are not SCs. So still use Principle > Guideline > [Something] In old-school usability terms, these would be 'heuristics', which are more about 'appropriateness' than an SC. But heuristics isn't a very good term, perhaps 'checks'? Mike, any suggestions from other standards? For example, Plain language could be framed as something like (and this is off-the-cuff): [Guideline] Use plain language for important information. [Check 1] Double negatives are not used to express a positive statement. [Check 2] Words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form for the concept. There would be quite a bit of work to re-categorise things, but perhaps less than the current approach. Cheers, -Alastair
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:18:59 UTC