RE: Failures Definition (Problem?)

+1 to that direction of clarifying the wording

​​​​​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog

-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:00 AM
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>
Subject: Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

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 09:13:39 UTC