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

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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:51:38 -0500
Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2B66135-F412-4802-BA85-B3E85D269D29@raisingthefloor.org>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>

> On May 3, 2016, at 3:27 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of warnings, or at least some way to say ‘this is a common way to fail’ without it being absolutist. 

This is an intriguing idea but I worry that too many places or countries even will take “this is a common way to fail” and interpret it as a failure.

We already have some countries that are interpreting things to fail if they do not use one of our documented sufficient techniques. No matter how many times we write “our techniques are only some known ways of fulfilling success criteria but there are often other ways as well” we still see places who fail a site that is accessible simply because it didn’t use one of our documented techniques.

Perhaps if we use “caution” but even then I’m afraid that sites will say that if there is a warning or a caution there is something wrong and it should be fixed.

This is really hard….
In people’s misinterpretation makes it even harder….

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:52:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:52:08 UTC