I’m not sure that the industry really cares about normative or not. If it is WCAG 2.0 related and compliance, legal, design and development and testing departments are striving to follow WCAG 2.0 when they look through all the reference materials they just find guidelines as to how to meet WCAG 2.0..
WCAG 2.0 even states:
“WCAG 2.0 is supported by the associated non-normative documents, Understanding WCAG 2.0 and Techniques for WCAG 2.0. Although those documents do not have the formal status that WCAG 2.0 itself has, they provide information important to understanding and implementing WCAG.”
So, does that mean if an understand or technique is not normative, then it does not have be followed if applicable?
Alan
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: josh@interaccess.ie
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:45 AM
To: White, Jason J; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Gian Wild; David MacDonald; WCAG; w3c WAI List
Subject: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques
------ Original Message ------
From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
[...]
My concern about date-stamping failures is that failures are not normative and we already have plenty of confusion about that. [...]
I agree. Anything which tends to reinforce a perception that techniques/failures are normative is problematic, in my view.
Agreed, but we do get lost in our own jargon. Most devs don't consider normative/non-normative at all - and do consider anything
we publish as 'best practice' - which is questionable.
Thanks
Josh
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
