W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

From: Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:40:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4474E0E5.2090900@w3development.de>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> You don't pass a success criterion by passing a technique test.   The
> technique tests only tell you that you pass the technique. Whether a
> technique is sufficient to meet 

I assume there's something missing here. But yes, the "Understanding" 
document lists techniques that the WCAG WG thinks to be sufficient to 
pass a success criterion.

> If you pass a technique but trigger a failure - then you fail.  No matter
> who's technique.

Ah, interesting. That's a clear statement  :-)

> We document common failures to make it easier for people to avoid them.
> They are failures whether we document them or not.    They are failures not
> because they are documented but because you can't do them and meet the
> success criterion.    
> 
> If someone creates a technique that they say meets the success criterion but
> it involves something that is documented as a failure then
> a) they are mistaken

That's what I meant with interfering.

> or
> b) the failure is written up poorly and should and would be changed.  
> 
> A properly written failure is always a failure unless or until the success
> criterion is changed. 
> 
> Does that help?

Yes, thanks.

-- 
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
                          (Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 22:40:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT