Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

On 22/09/2016 09:19, John Foliot wrote:
> Recently, when reviewing the "Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success
> Criteria"
> (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-failures-head)
> I noticed what I consider a potential issue with some of the language in
> that document, specificly the following:
>
>     "/Failures/ are things that cause accessibility barriers and fail
>     specific success criteria... Content that has a /failure/ does not
>     meet WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided
>     without the failure."
>
>
> ​The question for this group is, ​do we really mean an alternative
> *version*, or do we mean an alternative *technique*?
>
> In chatting with James Craig Wednesday evening at TPAC, he and I both
> felt that the current language could be interpreted as an open the door
> for the 'alternative water-fountain' (a.k.a. separate but equal - until
> the 2 versions get out of sync)
>
> ​Do others share this concern? Is this something we should look at
> addressing (either as part of the 2.1 work, or as a separate task for
> this WG)? (And yes, this is an 8-year-old potential editorial glitch)

The language certainly isn't clear, which is a problem in itself. That 
said, I think that failure techniques themselves are a problem anyway.

Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

>
> Thoughts?
>
> JF
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 08:36:21 UTC