Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

Hi Christophe,

Agreed, but that is also the root of my concern. From the link you
provided, I see this:

"...the conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page..."

​...which for me reinforces the idea that using an alternative technique is
out of scope, it has to be an alternative *page*. My concern is that is
actually an anti-pattern we've striven to avoid for years now, and if
nothing else we should look to further clarify what it is we actually
mean.​

JF


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Christophe Strobbe <
strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> Hi John, All,
>
> On 22/09/2016 10:19, John Foliot wrote:
>
> Greetings colleagues,
>
> Recently, when reviewing the "Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success
> Criteria" (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
> understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-failures-head)
> I noticed what I consider a potential issue with some of the language in
> that document, specificly the following:
>
> "*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."
>
>
> ​The question for this group is, ​do we really mean an alternative
> *version*, or do we mean an alternative *technique*?
>
>
> I think it should mean "conforming alternate version", i.e. a alternate
> version of the content. "Conforming alternate version" is the term used in
> the main document: see the definition at  <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
> #conforming-alternate-versiondef>
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef>.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
>
> In chatting with James Craig Wednesday evening at TPAC, he and I both felt
> that the current language could be interpreted as an open the door for the
> 'alternative water-fountain' (a.k.a. separate but equal - until the 2
> versions get out of sync)
>
> ​Do others share this concern? Is this something we should look at
> addressing (either as part of the 2.1 work, or as a separate task for this
> WG)? (And yes, this is an 8-year-old potential editorial glitch)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> JF
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> Akademischer Mitarbeiter
> Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)
> Hochschule der Medien
> Nobelstraße 10
> 70569 Stuttgart
> Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
>
> “I drink tea and I know things.”
> Falsely attributed to Christophe Lannister.
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion