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

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

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:52:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP18233751AACF9DC2324E1C7FE640@phx.gbl>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I've given up trying to introduce failures to WCAG 2. Even ones that should
be failures like letting blind people know where the regions on a page are.

There have been 3 little administrative failures voted "yes" in 8 years.
The technology independent strategy of "ever green" success criteria and
updated non normative techniques and failures of WCAG 2 in this regard has
been a total failure. So even though in principle yes... a failure is
always a failure... the whole business with respect  to failures has been a
failure and I'm hoping for a new way forward.

This might make industry a little uncomfortable, but they've always been
uncomfortable with requirements... for perhaps good reasons from their
perspective but the end result is that people with disabilities suffer ...

We need a solution, if not a date field I'm all ears... how are we going to
solve this in WCAG.NEXT?

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>

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> agree
>
> failures don’t become failures on the date they were documented.
>  Failures are failures whether we document them or not. Documenting them is
> just a courtesy to people to make COMMON failures more evident (and less
> common).
>
> They should stay up as long as they are accurate and should be removed
> when not.      And we can document failures at any time it seems helpful.
>  But the date a failure is documented has nothing to do with anything.
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> Reply-To: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>
> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:26
> To: Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>, David MacDonald <
> david100@sympatico.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI-IG <
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and
> Techniques
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 07:25
>
>
> ------ 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
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> 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>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 15:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 April 2016 15:53:15 UTC