RE: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell []
> 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'?
[Jason] While I agree with Michael that this discussion should be considered as part of the Silver development process rather than for WCAG 2.1, the idea is worth exploring further. How would these "checks" or "heuristics" relate to the conformance arrangements of a hypothetical future specification?

In an earlier discussion, I suggested one possibility: to establish design process requirements. Gregg rightly pointed out that such requirements would not be reviewable without cooperation between the entity claiming conformance and the reviewer. I don't think this is necessarily fatal to the idea.

If the heuristics were non-normative, we would then run the risk of creating genuine confusion by mixing normative and non-normative material in the same sections of a single document, or by making the normative and non-normative aspects appear to be too similar to each other (i.e., quasi-success criteria that really aren't).

I'm sure there are other possibilities of which I'm not aware for integrating this idea.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Friday, 26 May 2017 16:56:21 UTC