Hi, Alistair,
Agreed. It would make sense. Actually this has been discussed several times in meetings, and Wilco has presented the idea to the AG. He even did an example of how this might look:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
My understanding is that the AG are focusing a lot on sufficient techniques over failure techniques, though.
I don’t know where the discussion landed with the AG, but maybe it would make sense to revisit this.
Stein Erik Skotkjerra
Head of Accessibility Relations
[cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170]<http://siteimprove.com/da/>
Sankt Annæ Plads 28 | DK-1250 København K
Mobile +45 26 34 34 55 | ses@siteimprove.com<mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove> Twitter<https://twitter.com/Siteimprove> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>
Unsubscribe<http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>Stein Erik Skotkjerra
From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>
Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
To: Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?
Resent-From: <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
Hi,
I’m looking ahead and starting to realised that the ACT Rules we create could be a very fitting replacement for Failure Techniques (which I’ve felt have always sat a little strangely in the whole process).
I’m still, of course, a firm believer in using W3C Sufficient Techniques (where available) to show someone how to fix an issue found via a rule – as I’ve said many times.
So, in my head, ACT rules perfectly play Yin to Sufficient Techniques Yang. In a way that Failure Techniques never quite did.
Interested to hear others thoughts on this.
All the best
Alistair
---
Alistair Garrison
Director of Accessibility Research
Level Access
+44 131 460 7871 (o)
+44 7925 045791 (c/m)
