- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:45:56 -0400
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- CC: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@illinois.edu>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP151561E174A53780F471EBFFE3B0@phx.gbl>
Given the group conscience decision regard the proposed failure documented in #173, being bumped to the 2.1 suite of documents, https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173 In the interest of not spending group time replaying that decision process, I feel it more prudent to introduce this group of aria failures in 2.1, which is the decision for #173 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 Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:20 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > From that analysis I identified 24 failure techniques that I think we > could consider for WCAG 2.1 which address current WCAG 2 failures. I set up > a WIKI here. > > > they are failures of 2.0 - they would are documented as failures there - > not for 2.1. > > If 2.1 is a guideline— it would contain no failures. Failures are just > “common things that people do that would fail an SC”. > > if it is a failure of 2.0 it would be documented there. > > if it is not a failure of 2.0 but a failure of 2.1 - it would be > documented in the techniques and failures of 2.1 > > —— or did you mean something else? > > *gregg* > > On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:20 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > I did an analysis of all of the checks in the University of Illinois > Functional Accessibility Evaluator (FAE) by Jon Gunderson, through the lens > of WCAG 2. > > http://davidmacd.com/WCAG/review-of-ruleset-OAA.html > > From that analysis I identified 24 failure techniques that I think we > could consider for WCAG 2.1 which address current WCAG 2 failures. I set up > a WIKI here. > > > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Failures_based_on_the_Functional_Accessibility_Evaluation_(FAE)_tool_from_the_University_of_Illinois > > > 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> > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 01:46:38 UTC