Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

I like it. Presenting a date could be very helpful, and it can't hurt.

How about calling them dates of publication and revision, instead of dates
of approval? This would read more in the spirit of the techniques and
failures.

"If anyone identifies a situation where a documented failure is not
correct... it can be corrected or deleted as appropriate."

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20160317/understanding-techniques.html

"Publication as a Working Group Note does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership."

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20160317/

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 1:32pm Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com> wrote:

> That is an absolutely FANTASTIC idea!!
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Gian Wild, CEO*
>
> *AccessibilityOz*
>
>
>
> *Email:* gian@accessibilityoz.com
>
> *Mobile (Australia):* 042 442 6262
>
> *Cell (United States):* (206) 701 6363
>
>
>
> *Offices:*
>
> *United States*: (415) 621 9366
>
> *Canberra:* (02) 6108 3689
>
> *Melbourne:* (03) 8677 0828
>
> *Brisbane:* (07) 3041 4011
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 26 April 2016 12:55 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques
>
>
>
> 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>
>
-- 

Mitchell Evan
mtchllvn@gmail.com
+1 (510) 375-6104