- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:42:27 +0000
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- CC: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
John Foliot wrote: > "The question for this group is, do we really mean an alternative *version*, or do we mean an alternative *technique*?" Hi John, I think I understand this better having read it now. I thought the idea for failures (and there reason there are so few of them) is that it represents something that universally & always fails. Applying an alternative technique doesn't make sense because they could not have applied any technique that meets the SC. The text: "Failures are things that cause accessibility barriers and fail specific success criteria... Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided without the failure." I agree that we should encourage people to use a technique that meets the criteria (whether or not it's from the WCAG techniques), but if it matches a failure, that is a failure. It is a last resort. Cheers, -Alastair
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 08:43:02 UTC