+1 to Jonathan and Jason — AND John now. Failures never define or refine or limit or expand Success Criteria. They are just ways that ‘old hands’ (be they young or old) at WCAG evaluation can use to pass on information about COMMON and KNOWN and SERIOUS things that fail a success criteria to make it easier for others and less expert evaluators to be sure to catch them —— OR to document something that everyone knows fails but there is some entity that doesn’t think so and evaluators would like to have something to point to. Adding failures does not make WCAG stronger or weaker. It just makes some things clearer to some people with less expertise. We don’t add them often because we caught most of the serious ones — and most new failures that are proposed either 1) don’t always apply or 2) there ARE ways to pass the SC and these “failures” are really “failures to do it a certain way” and we don’t prescribe any way as the only way to do things. (hence John’s ‘techniques are non-normative’ comment below) gregg > On Jul 18, 2016, at 1:48 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > > +1 to Jonathan and Jason. > > I continue to struggle with using Failure Techniques to "define" Success Criteria - it just feels wrong and off to me, as there are so many ways to 'fail' that I struggle to see the value in documenting them all. Further, as Katie previously pointed out, this WG had to go back and clarify that Techniques are non-normative - a point we should be re-enforcing, not slipping-on by referencing them as part of the defining of a SC.
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 20:25:25 UTC