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: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:56:34 +0100
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>,Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>,IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>,GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>,John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>,Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>,"Denis Boudreau (gmail)" <dboudreau01@gmail.com>,Kevin White <kevin@dewoollery.co.uk>
Message-ID: <47d2cdaa-a0ae-4657-977a-7711d99f2769@typeapp.com>
I wonder if we could have a 'warning'  category?  So it's not a hard fail,  with all the baggage of gaining consensus, but a common anti pattern that could cause known a11y issues? 

Would that be useful in a WCAG.next ? 

Josh 

Sent from TypeApp



On 29 Apr 2016, 22:42, at 22:42, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I spent 10 hours on Issue 173 trying to those 3 things ...
>https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
>I rewrote it numerous times addressing concerns... changing scope
>trying to
>accommodate the legacy question...
>
>Yes, it's a lot of work, and I think that work was reasonably well
>done,
>but voting a failure through is almost impossible especially in the
>light
>of legacy sites...I trust the group conscience, and am not going to
>push
>it, except to hope that we can provide add some common failures in
>2.1...
>
>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 Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
>gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
>> the biggest thing holding back documenting failures — is that it is a
>lot
>> of work.
>>
>>
>>    1. have to explore it
>>    2. have to find out if there are ways to succeed while doing this
>>    3. have to qualify it properly ( If xxxxxx is used ….)
>>
>> then you have to write it up
>>
>> lot of work.
>>
>>
>> *gregg*
>>
>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 1:53 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think 4 failures in 8 years is fewer than the common failures that
>we as
>> a11y evaluators have seen show up on many of our reports since that
>time.
>>
>>
>>
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 21:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 April 2016 21:57:24 UTC