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

Joshue O Connor wrote:
> Yes.  As failures are hard to mint, and David is calling out a need for more,  my 'warning' suggestion is maybe a way of meeting the need without doing normative or quasi normative work.

Surely the reason that failures are so hard to mint is the “multiple ways to pass” approach that WCAG took? 
(And I’m obviously saying this with plenty of hindsight! I didn’t think of this at the time.)

If there are 3 techniques to pass an SC, the absence of one of those techniques cannot be a failure.
If a failure must always be a failure, there cannot be another way to pass. 

The more technologies (e.g. ARIA) there are available, the more ways there are to pass, the harder it is to create new failures.

I like the idea of warnings, or at least some way to say ‘this is a common way to fail’ without it being absolutist. 

It could also provide more context about the technology, e.g. ‘if ARIA is part of your Accessibility Supported list, then if is a failure not to use landmarks for 1.3.1’.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 08:27:36 UTC