Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

> That said, I think that failure techniques themselves are a problem
anyway.

Hi Leonie,

I tend to agree with that statement as well, and in a bigger "going
forward" discussion I'd personally like for this WG to completely re-think
"Failure Techniques" altogether. One potential alternative (suggested by
Wilco Fiers of the WAI-ACT TF) would be to move towards a model of Success
Techniques and Failure RULES - but I also wonder if this might not be a
subject for the Silver/3.0 effort.

Meanwhile, the current non-normative language of the current Understanding
document could likely be modified as an editorial change without the same
amount of overhead as a re-factoring of WCAG, if this WG believes it
is necessary.

JF

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

> 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
>>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion