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

My concern about date-stamping failures is that failures are not normative and we already have plenty of confusion about that.  Setting a date on a failure and saying that if a page was published before Jan 1, 2017 that the failure doesn’t apply is going to further confuse that. I recognize the value of the interpretation of standards to be able to easily adjust to changes in technology, but it is very tricky business and we will need to think carefully about how to best accomplish that.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards

From: "<>" <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:26
To: Gian Wild <<>>, David MacDonald <<>>, WCAG <<>>, WAI-IG <<>>
Subject: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques
Resent-From: WCAG <<>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:25

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gian Wild" <<>>

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




Gian Wild, CEO
Mobile (Australia): 042 442 6262
Cell (United States): (206) 701 6363

United States: (415) 621 9366
Canberra: (02) 6108 3689
Melbourne: (03) 8677 0828
Brisbane: (07) 3041 4011

From: David MacDonald [<>]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2016 12:55 PM
To: WCAG <<>>; w3c WAI List <<>>
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.

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)

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

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.

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.

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902



  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 13:25:13 UTC