- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:35:50 +0100
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
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