RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques



>-----Original Message-----


>But if the proposed failure is "failure for NOT using something" (e.g.
>aria landmarks or whatever), then clearly the author hasn't relied on that
>technology since they haven't used it...so that sort of failure wouldn't actually
>be possible, right?

Correct. If authors insist on using older technologies in order to conform, then I don't think there's anything WCAG can do about it.

However, they're supposed to "rely upon" newer technologies over time, and we can still say (non-normatively), for example, that authors should be using ARIA to meet certain success criteria nowadays, and therefore should be relying on ARIA in their conformance.

One of the implications of developing long-lasting guidelines that allow authors to choose their technologies is that, as long as they conform, it's up to them which technologies they use in order to do it.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 15:19:45 UTC