W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:33:24 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D5984E04-CAE8-4933-A9C7-17A771BE65F6@nomensa.com>
Hi David,

I didn’t express it very well on the call, but I think my core objection to the failure technique is that it changes (in practice) the results of testing a page.

Question: In the period between WCAG 2.0 being released and ARIA landmarks becoming well known / used (to any degree), did you fail pages that did not use a heading or text to identify regions of the page like headers, footers etc?

I know I didn’t.  I promoted the use of headings (hidden if necessary) to identify navigation and other page furniture, and emphasised that a document should make sense when read without styling (which has a similar effect). 

However, pre-landmarks I did not have the concept of page-regions in the same way as I do now. We were missing the concept and standardised terms for regions of the page, not just the implementation. Therefore I didn’t fail pages that did not identify regions of the page.

So in my mind adding a failure for this is an effective change to what the SC had meant in practice.

On adding dates: Sure, an approved date seems like a good idea, presumably the technique (or even failure ;-) shouldn’t substantively change once it has been approved then?



On 26/04/2016, 20:37, "David MacDonald" <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:

>Today I proposed a failure that I wrote up in issue 173.

>It to ensure authors identify regions of a page programmatically (or with text).
>We did not gain consensus and I am dropping the proposal in this
>version of WCAG.
>However, I think it points to a significant problem that we will have
>to address in WCAG.NEXT. I would like to propose a solution.
>WCAG was created to be an ever green document. The SCs are not
>technology dependent, non normative techniques and failures, can be
>created to address new realities that we see on the ground as the web
>develops. This has happened for techniques, but not failures. We have
>created about 150 new techniques since 2008, and only *3* (three)
>It is not from a lack of failure proposals, there have been plenty in
>8 years. However, it is almost impossible to gain consensus on a
>failure, because there are always a some voices that will not want to
>tighten things up, for various reasons, some of them I would agree
>with in some situations. Here are the main reasons its hard to pass a
>1) Fear that it changes the requirements of WCAG
>2) If not, a fear that there is a *percieved* change to WCAG
>3) Fear that pages that once passed will not pass after a new common
>failure is introduced.
>Id' like to propose an "Approved date" field, to techniques and
>failures, which would be populated when we gained consensus on a
>technique or failure. This will give jurisdictions a tool to exempt
>failures that were created after a site was built.
>David MacDonald
>CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>Tel:  613.235.4902
>  Adapting the web to all users
>            Including those with disabilities
>If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 08:33:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 April 2016 08:33:56 UTC