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

>>“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)”, which is how I’ve always thought of them, so I am surprised
to hear that others see the Failures as more important than that. ...

That would be wonderful, simply to do that. Let's document common failures.
We are currently not documenting common failures, or ANY failures. There is
perhaps nothing more common these days than missing region markers, and I
would suggest, nothing easier to fix. Jason was absolutely correct. What
was missing in my failure proposal was to mention the technology relied
upon. Here's conformance requirement 4:

*4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies:* Only
accessibility-supported
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#accessibility-supporteddef> ways of using
technologies <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technologydef> are relied upon
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#reliedupondef> to satisfy the success
criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that
is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is
accessibility supported. (See Understanding accessibility support
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head>.)


 So if someone is relying on HTML5, then they should use NAV, MAIN, FOOTER,
HEADER etc. or Landmark roles. And it is an extremely common failure,
especially a missing <main> element, We should document it as a "common
courtesy".

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 3:22 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:20 PM
>
> Having failures that are “…worded as carefully as possible so as to
> provide bulletproof failures” kind of feels like an anti-pattern to me –
> that we are spending time and resources documenting multiple ways of saying
> “don’t do this”, when to my mind the better way forward is to continue to
> offer more Success Techniques (aka “Do this – or this, or this, or this”)
> which as David has noted, this WG is doing already, with 150 new SC since
> 2008 – which is awesome.
>
>
>
> +1 to the idea of focusing on how to succeed rather than on the various
> ways of failing.
>
>
>
> Giving good guidance on technology choice (e.g., use ARIA landmark roles
> for backward compatibility or where they aren’t superseded by HTML 5
> elements that have been widely implemented) is valuable as well.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>