- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:00:07 +0000
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Perhaps this bit: Content that has a failure does not meet WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided without the failure. Would be clearer as: Content that has a failure cannot claim conformance to WCAG (at that level), unless an alternate version is provided without the failure. There is probably a better method of saying "at that level" from elsewhere, but you get the idea. Cheers, -Alastair ________________________________________ From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> Sent: 22 September 2016 09:55:36 To: Léonie Watson Cc: WCAG; James Craig; Wilco Fiers Subject: 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<mailto: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<http://tink.uk> Carpe diem Thoughts? JF -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> <mailto: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<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 09:00:41 UTC