I wonder if we could have a 'warning' category? So it's not a hard fail, with all the baggage of gaining consensus, but a common anti pattern that could cause known a11y issues?
Would that be useful in a WCAG.next ?
Josh
Sent from TypeApp
On 29 Apr 2016, 22:42, at 22:42, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>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.
>>
>>
>>