RE: Using more robust failures to support existing SCs

> and they (failures) can only be created if there is no way to pass under any circumstances for any content for any technology if you do this.

Just looking at the failures list for WCAG this does not appear to always be the case.  Some of the failures are technology specific such as with CSS, scripting, etc. IMO. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/failures.html


> 2) it has to be impossible to pass the SC for all case if the failure is true.

Yes, but the " Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria" note indicates "Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided without the failure."

I've always understood this to mean that even if you had a failure you could still meet the SC requirement through an alternative method that passes an SC.  So a failure is only a failure if there isn't another technique that doesn't meet the success criteria. So for example, you could have a meaningful image with no alt text but have a description of the image in text right next to the image.

Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com

703-637-8957 (o) 
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:44 PM
To: Joshue O Connor
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: Using more robust failures to support existing SCs

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
>

Received on Friday, 30 October 2015 14:25:16 UTC