Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)

Hi John, All,

On 22/09/2016 10:19, John Foliot wrote:
> Greetings colleagues,
>
> 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*?

I think it should mean "conforming alternate version", i.e. a alternate
version of the content. "Conforming alternate version" is the term used
in the main document: see the definition at 
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef>.

Best regards,

Christophe

>
> 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)
>
> 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


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749

“I drink tea and I know things.” 
Falsely attributed to Christophe Lannister.