Re: Using more robust failures to support existing SCs

Thanks Gregg for the info (and indeed warning). I guess the comments from Detlev and Jon got me thinking of ways to strengthen/bolster the quality of SC conformance. IIRC, I also remember Loretta being rather cautious of minting new failures unless absolutely necessary.


Josh






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎29‎ ‎October‎ ‎2015 ‎21‎:‎44
To: Joshue O Connor
Cc: WCAG





Failures are great — but they are VERY hard to do.

They never broaden an SC — and they can only be created if there is no way to pass under any circumstances for any content for any technology if you do this. 

We (the working group) has had to remove a number that we created due to this.  


1) the  SC has to absolutely require it
2) it has to be impossible to pass the SC for all case if the failure is true. 

They are very helpful to evaluators when they can be created.

Gregg


> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In the last thread - some interesting comments from Detlev and Jon A, got me thinking and I want to give a +1. I agree with Detlev and Jon and think this is a clever approach to providing better support for existing SCs, by having more and varied failures.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Josh
>