Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

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.



Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:18:59 UTC