- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:02:43 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 06/04/2016 23:15, David MacDonald wrote: > If there is a visual indication of a Header, Footer, Navigation, etc... > then knowledge of these sections should be available to people who are > blind. > This is why we have 1.3.1. [...] > Here is Gregg's comment about failures: > ===== > actually, you can document a failure if there is a fail — at any point > in time. A fail is like a technique. > > Failures (full name is common failure ) is > > * something that ALWAYS fails the SC as written > * is common - and therefore worth documenting. > > failures never modify WCAG - they just document what is a failure > (ALWAYS a failure on all content) And this is where I see a danger of making very broad statements about "visual indication" without actually considering the content and context. Conversely, if the basis of determining the failure is the "visual indication", what happens if the exact same markup that would fail under this new failure was simply styled NOT to have a distinct visual indication? Would that then be a pass? https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173#issuecomment-206625763 -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 00:03:09 UTC