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

Re: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:31:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH2ngETyurWmNC37AY1Oteof0hN2TeBO0BdKru5=-yrsGXTVwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think the date a failure was published or changed is very useful.
Failures (while not normative) are interpreted to have more strength than
other informative parts of WCAG...and indeed they help the world of
accessibility experts be consistent.  I think that changes (additions,
edits, deletions) to failures are SUPER important for the accessibility
community to easily know...it helps us understand why on "x date 5 years
ago...it wasn't as clear that y was a failure...even though in reality it
should have always been a failure."...."but now on date Z it became super
clear to everyone that this is indeed a failure."

Being the girl that has to defend interpretations done by 50+ a11y experts
at Deque...I'd welcome a "published" date on failures with open arms.


P.S.  Failure Published Date could have a clear definition explaining the
nuances of what that date actually means.
P.P.S.  Andrew & Josh..have I mentioned how much I appreciate the work
y'all do chairing the WCAGWG?  I know it is very hard to do.  Thank you for
all your positive energy and patience.

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773

*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:45 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>

> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
> [...]
> My concern about date-stamping failures is that failures are not normative
> and we already have plenty of confusion about that.  [...]
> I agree. Anything which tends to reinforce a perception that
> techniques/failures are normative is problematic, in my view.
> Agreed, but we do get lost in our own jargon. Most devs don't consider
> normative/non-normative at all - and do consider anything
> we publish as 'best practice' - which is questionable.
> Thanks
> Josh
> ------------------------------
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 14:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 April 2016 14:32:21 UTC