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: Kevin White <kevin@dewoollery.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:04:43 +0100
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <196CF6AC-AA3E-46C8-8794-FA7FA976AF06@dewoollery.co.uk>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Hi John,

> On 28 Apr 2016, at 19:50, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am left asking “where is the value-add?” Why do we
>> need to document more Failure techniques on WCAG 2.0
>> today? I don’t know, and I think it’s an honest
>> question to be asking.
> In my experience a developer is more likely to address an issue if I
> can point him to the related W3C failure document.


I have had a number of instances where I have evaluated websites where the development team were an agency separate from the actual client. The client would push for doing everything they could to be accessible and the agency would push back unless I could categorically identify the documented instance of the failure. I recall a couple of times when agencies stated that things I had marked as failures were simply my opinion.

2 pence worth (sorry exchange rates apply)


Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:06:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:57 UTC