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

+1 

    On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:01 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
 

 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 CanAdapt Solutions Inc.Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 
twitter.com/davidmacdGitHubwww.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
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 KirkpatrickGroup Product Manager, Accessibility and StandardsAdobe 
akirkpat@adobe.comhttp://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, CEOAccessibilityOz Email:gian@accessibilityoz.comMobile (Australia): 042 442 6262Cell (United States): (206) 701 6363 Offices:United States: (415) 621 9366Canberra: (02) 6108 3689Melbourne: (03) 8677 0828Brisbane: (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 haveto 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:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 
twitter.com/davidmacdGitHubhttp://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