This is the short name for the SC (e.g. "Non-text Content" is the short name for SC 1.1.1 in WCAG 2.0)
Please try anfd keep formating basic - no block quotes etc
Summary sentence: (optional)
This is the text of the Success Criterion. Take the original wording from : coga for wcag. Remember to include any exceptions!
The wording needs to be
If it is not clear then do not do the testable section yet. Bring it to the lists attentions - We will need to reword it together.
If the current wording is unclear you can rework, but put the original wording in brackets after so it is easy for the task force and working group to compare.
You can make it applicable to all content by adding an exception.
If suggesting a wording change to an existing success criteria, write the complete SC text and then follow that with a version which indicates the changes by surrounding new text with "@@". For example (just an example):
(only use if this proposal replaces an existing SC)
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following: (Level AA)
(only use if this proposal replaces an existing SC)
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of @@text, images of text, and icons@@ has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following: (Level @@A@@).
Details of any suggested glossary definitions or changes. you can find most of these at Terms (in our original proposal ) or inline in the original proposal.
You may need to add a definition. If you add a definition please also add it to Terms or send it to the list and I will add it.
Also David suggested specific language for the SC about "interactive controls" which we can use
A simple answer, such as "Principle 1, Guideline 1.4".
If proposing a new Guideline, indicate the Principle.
In our current proposal coga for wcag , the SC is placed under a heading of what guideline it falls under. In this new template it goes here
you can look at WCAG 2.0 here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
A description of what the intent of the SC is, including what users benefit from the content successfully addressing it (examples are helpful, but not required).
This is our opportunity to explain why this Success Criteria is really important to real users and without it they can not use content
We should make sure the benefits section in each Success Cryteria (SC) clearly identifies cases of were people can not use content that does not conform to this SC.
Clear information about how the proposal will benefit users, along with justification and evidence of the benefits (this may be a link to a different resource). You can add examples about the user if it helps.
You can often find evidence in the bellow links, including the COGA Techniques and Background research document. Feel free to add more!
Do a search for key terms in the COGA Techniques and Background research document and read the whole section. Make sure you refrence any reaserch evidence and benifits.
Resources are for information purposes only, no endorsement implied.
Example links
Example issue papers
Show how this SC can be tested. This may include manual, automated, or semi-automated mechanisms.
Manual - If you have ten educated people in the room, will they all agree that something conforms?
You may want to do the techniques first (see bellow), and then say how you can see if you conform to a success technique. This is a way of manualy testing conformance.
Possible technique titles which could be used to satisfy the SC (YOU ONLY NEED THE TITLE of each technique - not the whole thing). If existing techniques will fully satisfy the SC these can be identified here also.
Do a search for key terms in the COGA Techniques . Make sure you refrence any examples (pass and fail).
For example, a simple change to 1.4.3 (as in the above example), might result in a response like this:
References:
You will find a lot of techniques identified in our original proposal coga for wcag
also look at COGA Techniques
and Techniques for WCAG 2.0 - W3C