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

I've given up trying to introduce failures to WCAG 2. Even ones that should
be failures like letting blind people know where the regions on a page are.

There have been 3 little administrative failures voted "yes" in 8 years.
The technology independent strategy of "ever green" success criteria and
updated non normative techniques and failures of WCAG 2 in this regard has
been a total failure. So even though in principle yes... a failure is
always a failure... the whole business with respect  to failures has been a
failure and I'm hoping for a new way forward.

This might make industry a little uncomfortable, but they've always been
uncomfortable with requirements... for perhaps good reasons from their
perspective but the end result is that people with disabilities suffer ...

We need a solution, if not a date field I'm all ears... how are we going to
solve this in WCAG.NEXT?

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <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
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> agree
>
> failures don’t become failures on the date they were documented.
>  Failures are failures whether we document them or not. Documenting them is
> just a courtesy to people to make COMMON failures more evident (and less
> common).
>
> They should stay up as long as they are accurate and should be removed
> when not.      And we can document failures at any time it seems helpful.
>  But the date a failure is documented has nothing to do with anything.
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 recognize the
> value of the interpretation of standards to be able to easily adjust to
> changes in technology, but it is very tricky business and we will need to
> think carefully about how to best accomplish that.
>
> 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
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> 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
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>