Hi John Yes, I'm proposing that we try to figure out a way to get all that great advice for cognitive and low vision that may not be testable put to use... In WCAG we often rely on a "strong correlation" of expert opinion as one form of testability ... in that case they could become success criteria... Otherwise I'd like some sort of a way to give them some more prominence if they don't make it to SCs ... we found AAA didn't solve it in WCAG. That is the extent of my suggestion... maybe together we can figure out how to do that... On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Paul J. Adam <paul.adam@deque.com> wrote: > I would prefer the term "Future Success Criterion" or something that > sounds more like a future requirement than "Best Practice" which to me > sounds like a "Nice to have", "Above and beyond" recommendation only. > > But I like the idea of getting developers to implement WCAG 2.1 SC’s now > rather than later. > > Thanks! > > Paul J. Adam > Accessibility Evangelist > www.deque.com > > On Apr 11, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> > wrote: > > In my model, Best Practices would actually be the Success Criteria of WACG > 2.1, those same items would be non-normative Best Practices for WCAG 2.0 > > > > > > ** katie ** > > *Katie Haritos-Shea* > *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)* > > *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com* > <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile* > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545 > <703-371-5545>* > >Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 15:46:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:57 UTC