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 20:00:55 -0500
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DBC0DB62-C5C0-402A-BB7A-68F25552A0A5@raisingthefloor.org>
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
agree with 

> 1. Sufficient Techniques (reliable way to pass, quite specific, other ways may exist) 
> 2. Advisory Techniques (common ways to pass, but there may be one or more limitations) 

Also agree that best practice is above being sufficient. Unfortunately - I think what is best practice sometimes depends on the page — so I’m not sure we can always label something as best practice.  But I DO think we can (and already do) name some things as best practices for some things. 

Do not understand 

> 3. [New] Warnings (common ways that pages don’t pass, but don’t automatically fail.) 

What does this mean?

If the page doesn’t pass — it fails.   
If they don’t automatically fail how are they failing? 

There has to be a better way to say this.   I would try but I don’t know what it is trying to say. 

RE Dating - 
I think we should have  “Last Date Revised or Reviewed.”   Really good ones will be reviewed periodically and found to be just right as they are.   They should then be dated with that review so they are not re-reviewed every year because their last  “revision” date was so long ago. 


Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 01:01:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 01:01:26 UTC