I spent 10 hours on Issue 173 trying to those 3 things ...
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
I rewrote it numerous times addressing concerns... changing scope trying to
accommodate the legacy question...
Yes, it's a lot of work, and I think that work was reasonably well done,
but voting a failure through is almost impossible especially in the light
of legacy sites...I trust the group conscience, and am not going to push
it, except to hope that we can provide add some common failures in 2.1...
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 Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
> the biggest thing holding back documenting failures — is that it is a lot
> of work.
>
>
> 1. have to explore it
> 2. have to find out if there are ways to succeed while doing this
> 3. have to qualify it properly ( If xxxxxx is used ….)
>
> then you have to write it up
>
> lot of work.
>
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 1:53 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> I think 4 failures in 8 years is fewer than the common failures that we as
> a11y evaluators have seen show up on many of our reports since that time.
>
>
>