Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

"Forcing the user to go to an alternative page to get this information
would not be productive."
Agreed. On the other hand the alternative page does allow for a claim of
conformance.

"Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria, unless an
alternate version is provided without the failure."
The logic of the sentence is confused or at least confusing.

The logic in that sentence says that the failure in content that has a
failure suddenly evaporates because an alternate version without the
failure is provided. That is not true. The content with the failure still
has the failure and should never be claimed as conforming to WCAG. The
content with the failure can become irrelevant with respect to WCAG
conformance when an alternate equivalent version without a WCAG failure is
provided.

An informative or actionable image rendered via CSS is a failure. Using a
technique to provide the same information, like an aria-label attribute on
a span element announced in the same context/location as the CSS image,
does not remove the failure associated with the image but it does make the
failure meaningless with respect to claiming WCAG conformance.

A little wordsmithing might resolve the confusion.
"Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria. Content
with a failure may be ignored when an alternate, equivalent version without
a failure is provided."

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> Ø  ​The question for this group is, ​do we really mean an alternative
> *version*, or do we mean an alternative *technique*?
>
>
>
> In my opinion we need the ability to apply some alternatives without an
> alternative version.  For example, say I have a complex chart on my page.
> Instead of making that complex chart accessible I could provide an
> alternative data table and text summary.  The key is that text alternatives
> must be on the same page and the user must be able to get to the text
> alternative from the content in additional any inaccessible content on the
> page can’t cause interference with accessing the page.
>
>
>
> The Accessibility Support section of the Understanding Conformance
> document also states the following “Any information or functionality that
> is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available
> in a way that is accessibility supported. (See Understanding
> accessibility support
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head>
> .)”
>
>
>
> So for example, say I have a map on the page with pins of different
> locations.  In theory I could put a list of locations below the map with
> equivalent information such as miles from my current location, etc.  This
> alternative would be on the same page but provide an alternative to the
> inaccessible map.  Forcing the user to go to an alternative page to get
> this information would not be productive.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
>
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 4:20 AM
> *To:* WCAG
> *Cc:* James Craig
> *Subject:* Failures Definition (Problem?)
>
>
>
> 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*?
>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
Regards,
Kurt Mattes
Accessibility Program Manager
Deque Systems
610-368-1539