Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

I think it would be great if we can have a "Last Revised Date" so people
can know that the techniques/failures are up-to-date. For the warning one,
I don't think we should have it. If the page doesn't pass this failure
checkpoint, we can add additional related failure checkpoints to that
checkpoints. By doing that, people can test with those checkpoints before
drawing a conclusion that the page does not pass this criteria.

For WCAG 2.1, I'm a little bit confused with the model. It seems to
indicate that mobile, vision and cognitive will merge with WCAG 2.0
conformance. If that is the case, why there won't be any new Failure
checkpoints. Are those checkpoints from those 3 groups will just be under
Sufficient/ Advisory Techniques? Will they have their own success criteria?


Regards,
Duc Ta

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> *agree with *
>
> 1. Sufficient Techniques (reliable way to pass, quite specific, other ways
> may exist)
> 2. Advisory Techniques (common ways to pass, but there may be one or more
> limitations)
>
>
>
> *Also agree *that best practice is above being sufficient. Unfortunately
> - I think what is best practice sometimes depends on the page — so I’m not
> sure we can always label something as best practice.  But I DO think we can
> (and already do) name some things as best practices for some things.
>
>
>
> *Do not understand *
>
> 3. [New] *Warnings* (common ways that pages don’t pass, but don’t
> automatically fail.)
>
>
> What does this mean?
>
> If the page doesn’t pass — it fails.
> If they don’t automatically fail how are they failing?
>
> There has to be a better way to say this.   I would try but I don’t know
> what it is trying to say.
>
>
>
>
> *RE Dating - *
>
>    - I think we should have * “Last Date Revised or Reviewed.”  * Really
>    good ones will be reviewed periodically and found to be just right as they
>    are.   They should then be dated with that review so they are not
>    re-reviewed every year because their last  “revision” date was so long ago.
>
>
>
>
> ciao
>
> gregg
>
>