W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:26:29 +0000
To: "Gian Wild" <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "w3c WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em99ea5538-3602-4c00-9df3-de4cfc2c4d40@josh_machine>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gian Wild" <gian@accessibilityoz.com>
[...]

>That is an absolutely FANTASTIC idea!!
>
I think this is a good idea, and would no have no objection.

Thanks

Josh


>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
>Tel:  613.235.4902
>
>LinkedIn
>
>twitter.com/davidmacd
>
>GitHub
>
>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
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 11:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 April 2016 11:25:14 UTC