- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:54:39 -0400
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP921A42589C05E3EBA720E9FE630@phx.gbl>
I think we have a problem introducing failures that we will have to address in WCAG.NEXT. I would like to propose a solution. ===Problem=== WCAG was created to be an ever green document. The SCs are not technology dependent, non normative techniques and failures, can be created to address new realities that we see on the ground as the web develops. This has happened for techniques, but not failures. We have created about 150 new techniques since 2008, and only *3* (three) failures. It is not from a lack of failure proposals, there have been plenty in 8 years. However, it is almost impossible to gain consensus on a failure, because there are always a some voices that will not want to tighten things up, for various reasons, some of them I would agree with in some situations. Here are the main reasons its hard to pass a failure: 1) Fear that it changes the requirements of WCAG 2) If not, a fear that there is a *percieved* change to WCAG 3) Fear that pages that once passed will not pass after a new common failure is introduced. ====Solution===== Id' like to propose an "Approved date" field, to techniques and failures, which would be populated when we gained consensus on a technique or failure. This will give jurisdictions a tool to exempt failures that were created after a site was built. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 19:55:10 UTC