Re: Using more robust failures to support existing SCs

I think Karl Groves created a blog post a few years ago which essentially stated that about 17% of WCAG could be fully automatically tested. I'm at Haneda airport at the moment so can't look for it but there are many more details within. 

Essentially I would expect that about 17% of the "requirements" in WCAG can be automatically tested. 



> On Oct 30, 2015, at 22:47, josh@interaccess.ie wrote:
> 
> Thanks Gregg for the info (and indeed warning). I guess the comments from Detlev and Jon got me thinking of ways to strengthen/bolster the quality of SC conformance. IIRC, I also remember Loretta being rather cautious of minting new failures unless absolutely necessary.
> 
> Josh
> 
> Sent from Windows Mail
> 
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎29‎ ‎October‎ ‎2015 ‎21‎:‎44
> To: Joshue O Connor
> Cc: WCAG
> 
> Failures are great — but they are VERY hard to do.
> 
> They never broaden an SC — and they can only be created if there is no way to pass under any circumstances for any content for any technology if you do this. 
> 
> We (the working group) has had to remove a number that we created due to this.  
> 
> 
> 1) the  SC has to absolutely require it
> 2) it has to be impossible to pass the SC for all case if the failure is true. 
> 
> They are very helpful to evaluators when they can be created.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> 
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > In the last thread - some interesting comments from Detlev and Jon A, got me thinking and I want to give a +1. I agree with Detlev and Jon and think this is a clever approach to providing better support for existing SCs, by having more and varied failures.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Josh
> > 
> 
>