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

if we generalize the test procedures for failures we would avoid this
pitfall
for instance for alternative text for images, instead of saying or alt or
aria-label or ...
we could just generalize and say if there is no programmatic determinable
alternative then it fails (and then link to the how to docs to reference
possible techniques)
enumerating all the possible techniques in the failure test was the main
problem with failures

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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
>