Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

On 27/04/2016 17:29, Alastair Campbell wrote:
[...]
> There is something else, but this may be a pandoras box, in which case
> tell me to shut up!
>
> I think part of the problem is that 1.3.1 (and 4.1.2 for web-apps) are
> in WCAG as SCs, but they are really the “size" of principles. When you
> create a page to be accessible (or audit a page), they hide a huge
> number of things you need to do or check.
>
> 1.3.1 means you have to go through every element on the page and ask
> yourself “is this the appropriate structure/semantics?”
>
> Checking 1.3.1 & 4.1.2 usually takes more time than all the other SCs
> put together.
>
> Perhaps if these were broken down more it would be easier to update them?


Yes, it's a pandora's box, but yes, you're right. 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 are 
the ones that take the longest to audit and the ones with the most 
number of issues in most of the audits I perform.

P
-- 
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 Wednesday, 27 April 2016 19:18:06 UTC