RE: additions to the acceptance criteria

From: lisa.seeman []
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 4:07 PM

I think we need to add the words " who has studied the topic involved". There are new disabilities being addressed and  web accessibility professional will need to get on top of new disabilities and how they use the web before they can expect to have a high degree of confidence that they have conformed
[Jason] While I appreciate Lisa’s point here, I think we should ensure that the Guidelines and accompanying non-normative materials can be reliably applied by people who do not have significant expertise in disability or in any specific disabilities. Such people are found in all roles (government, organizational administrators, Web content and software developers, etc.). I think it’s reasonable to expect them to read the non-normative materails for background, but not to have disability expertise independently of this reading.

I don’t think I’m necessarily disagreeing with Lisa here.

Also, the central concept that we used in developing WCAG 2.0 was that of high inter-rater reliability – striving to design the guidelines so that competent evaluators would tend to agree in their judgments about conformance. For purposes of clarification, I hope and expect that we’re employing the same concept now.


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 Tuesday, 17 January 2017 15:25:46 UTC