Re: additions to the acceptance criteria

> It should be the same for “Have Success Techniques”, I don’t think they
need to be fully drafted right now,

No, however
​ for any SC​
to advance to final
​ WCAG 2.1, we will need at least one technique for any Success Criteria we
publish. We can't simply say "Thou must do this" and then not show at least
one way of achieving it​, right?

JF

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Lisa wrote:
>
> > I just do not want people who have not read our new content to be
> considered an expert in web accessibility and therefor new disabilities can
> never be fully included...
>
>
>
> I agree with that aim, we shouldn’t expect an accessibility expert to read
> a draft SC and understand all the reasoning and nuance behind it, yet.
> (E.g. I’ve had to explain the different between “Resize content” and
> “Linearise” several times so we’re working on the differentiation. It is
> there, but the explanation of it needs improvement.)
>
>
>
> The other side is we should use the feedback & mis-understandings to
> refine the SCs and descriptions (what will become the understanding
> documents I assume). We should be aiming for an accessibility expert (or
> anyone really) to be able to read the SC & Understanding doc, and then be
> able to reliably apply the SC.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I wouldn’t look for inter-rater reliability based purely on the
> current SC & description. However, if some people **do** understand the
> SC and **still** think it cannot be applied reliably, then the SC has a
> problem.
>
>
>
> It should be the same for “Have Success Techniques”, I don’t think they
> need to be fully drafted right now, but it should be possible to create
> some, even if they are just bullet points so far.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion