- From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 08:59:16 +0000
- To: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "IG - WAI Interest Group List list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, >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.) I'd say that is correct, but I'm relatively 'new' to the group so wasn't a part of those discussions. > >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. Indeed. And there may also (read 'will') be other methods of satisfying an SC that isn't in the WCAG canon of techniques. > >The more technologies (e.g. ARIA) there are available, the more ways >there are to pass, the harder it is to create new failures. Correct. > >I like the idea of warnings, or at least some way to say ‘this is a >common way to fail’ without it being absolutist. Right. +1 from me, as I think the push for failures comes from a binary need. And a11y is not the most exact science. I'm on the fence about driving a 'warnings' category but it does seem something that could be useful to say - 'Here is a common problematic pattern for UI x - its not good practice, and heres a link to a better technique. Thanks Josh > >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 08:57:49 UTC