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: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:57:47 -0500
Cc: 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>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, "Denis Boudreau (gmail)" <dboudreau01@gmail.com>, Kevin White <kevin@dewoollery.co.uk>
Message-Id: <0BEEFA9E-6717-47B1-996D-B1669934567E@raisingthefloor.org>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>  but voting a failure through is almost impossible especially in the light of legacy sites..

I am confused.

Failures should only be documentation of things that WCAG required but are not met by some condition….. hence a failure.

If we document a failure today based on WCAG — it was always a failure.   And legacy sites failed it or not back in 2008 whether we documented it or not.    
And legacy sites that didn’t fail WCAG in the past — won’t fail any failure we document today.   
We cannot create any new failure conditions - we can only document what was always a failure under WCAG.

The only exceptions I can think of  (e.g. it fails today because new technologies now…. ) would only mean that a failure would have to be defined and scoped properly. 

Now I agree that creating Failures ( and creating techniques)  is a LOT of work.    Ive done many and there is no getting around the fact that it is a lot of work.  
but I miss the legacy content aspect.  


> On Apr 29, 2016, at 4:39 PM, 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 <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
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn 
>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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 <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote:
> the biggest thing holding back documenting failures — is that it is a lot of work.
> have to explore it
> have to find out if there are ways to succeed while doing this
> 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 <mailto: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 22:58:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:58 UTC