Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

On 26/04/2016 22:48, John Foliot wrote:
> I think the more appropriate way of "tightening" things is to revisit
> the problem area(s) and put forth a new SC that augments and
> strengthens an existing SC, in a fashion similar to how SC 1.4.6
> Contrast (Enhanced) is a "tightening" of SC 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum),
> or how SC 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) is a "tightening" of 3.3.4
> Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data), and which could be argued
> is an enhancement of SC 3.3.1 Error Identification.
> So in the case discussed on today's call, instead of attempting to
> back-door something via a "failure technique" why doesn't this WG
> contemplate (for example) a new "SC 1.3.4 Structural Consistency" (or
> some such) for, and introduce the new technology and
> "requirements" that way?
> To me, the bottom line is that I recognize that we now *DO* have the
> technology and techniques to do more than what WCAG 2.0 mandates, but
> that we cannot (and should not) be attempting to use a stable and
> fixed standard to advocate for that growth - that if we want (and
> expect) more/better today, we do that by introducing new
> requirements, and not attempt to retro-fit existing ones.

+1 on this

Patrick H. Lauke | |
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 22:02:32 UTC