- From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:36:29 +0000
- To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Gian Wild" <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "w3c WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <em0e7d5cad-2e72-45f2-801e-2ea7b8b347eb@josh_machine>
>My concern about date-stamping failures is that failures are not normative and we already have plenty of confusion about that. Setting a date >on a failure and saying that if a page was published before Jan 1, 2017 that the failure doesn’t apply is going to further confuse that. I didn't consider this, and certainly would not want to message that anything published before x date on a tech is or is not relevant. I see this suggestion more of a 'heads up' about how 'current' a tech may be - independently of whether it pertains or not to a given page. Further, the time stamp may could help devs see more current work that could be relevant to their responsive needs, or HTML.next etc - and may improve their perceived sense of relevancy. The flip side is that there may be perfectly good techs that are relevant but are just well - 'classic'. Maybe we need a 'golden oldies' section ;-) Josh > >Thanks, >AWK > >Andrew Kirkpatrick >Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards >Adobe > >akirkpat@adobe.com >http://twitter.com/awkawk > >From: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> >Reply-To: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie> >Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:26 >To: Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, David MacDonald ><david100@sympatico.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI-IG ><w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Subject: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and >Techniques >Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:25 > > >------ Original Message ------ >From: "Gian Wild" <gian@accessibilityoz.com> >[...] > >>That is an absolutely FANTASTIC idea!! >> >I think this is a good idea, and would no have no objection. > >Thanks > >Josh > > >> >> >> >>-- >> >> >> >>Gian Wild, CEO >> >>AccessibilityOz >> >> >> >>Email:gian@accessibilityoz.com >> >>Mobile (Australia): 042 442 6262 >> >>Cell (United States): (206) 701 6363 >> >> >> >>Offices: >> >>United States: (415) 621 9366 >> >>Canberra: (02) 6108 3689 >> >>Melbourne: (03) 8677 0828 >> >>Brisbane: (07) 3041 4011 >> >> >> >>From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] >>Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2016 12:55 PM >>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >>Subject: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques >> >> >> >>I think we have a problem introducing failures that we will have >> >>to address in WCAG.NEXT. I would like to propose a solution. >> >>===Problem=== >>WCAG was created to be an ever green document. The SCs are not >>technology dependent, non normative techniques and failures, can be >>created to address new realities that we see on the ground as the web >>develops. This has happened for techniques, but not failures. We have >>created about 150 new techniques since 2008, and only *3* (three) >>failures. >> >>It is not from a lack of failure proposals, there have been plenty in >>8 years. However, it is almost impossible to gain consensus on a >>failure, because there are always a some voices that will not want to >>tighten things up, for various reasons, some of them I would agree >>with in some situations. Here are the main reasons its hard to pass a >>failure: >> >>1) Fear that it changes the requirements of WCAG >>2) If not, a fear that there is a *percieved* change to WCAG >>3) Fear that pages that once passed will not pass after a new common >>failure is introduced. >> >>====Solution===== >>Id' like to propose an "Approved date" field, to techniques and >>failures, which would be populated when we gained consensus on a >>technique or failure. This will give jurisdictions a tool to exempt >>failures that were created after a site was built. >> >> >> >> >> >>Cheers, >>David MacDonald >> >> >> >>CanAdapt Solutions Inc. >> >>Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >>LinkedIn >> >>twitter.com/davidmacd >> >>GitHub >> >>http://www.can-adapt.com/ >> >> >> >> Adapting the web to all users >> >> Including those with disabilities >> >> >> >>If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy >>policy >>
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 13:35:12 UTC