W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2014

RE: WCAG-ISSUE-23 (DavidMacD): We should consider a new "Failure to provide role=presentation on a layout table"

From: Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:51:55 +0000
To: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
CC: "lorettaguarino@google.com Guarino-Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "rcorominas@technosite.es" <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "faulkner.steve@gmail.com" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2EC405EEF0B414E8B1415742F1C8BEC476AFA67@D2ASEPREA004>
Just out of curiousity where would the criteria for when to release a failure condition be kept?

Consider that every added failure condition is something that needs to be addressed by anyone seriously building comprehensive test procedures and results mechanisms.


From: CAE-Vanderhe [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:52 AM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: lorettaguarino@google.com Guarino-Reid; Andrew Kirkpatrick; rcorominas@technosite.es; faulkner.steve@gmail.com; Wilco Fiers; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: WCAG-ISSUE-23 (DavidMacD): We should consider a new "Failure to provide role=presentation on a layout table"


On Jun 2, 2014, at 9:31 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:


I should also add that historically, failure techniqies have a fair amount of politics surrounding them. Getting one introduced is a little like getting a new law passed through US congress except harder. Since 2008 we have introduced about about 115 sufficient techniques, and not one failure technique.



This sounds about right to me.

The COMMON failures are pretty easy to identify - and we captured them fairly early.    I wouldn't expect that we would keep finding common failures unless there were new technologies that were introduced that introduce a lot of common failures in their wake.

On the other hand - we are always finding new ways to solve problems,   and documenting ways to solve them with new technologies as they become available.

We might expect more than 0 new common failures to be discovered - but before listing them they should indeed be  COMMON and SERIOUS and CONSISTENT failures and ENDURING.   Tough criteria - but they should be I think.


((actually I think the failure count this last year was -1 or -2 wasn't it?   we took some out that were found to not always be failures?)



gregg
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 15:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:56 UTC