Hi Jason,
Yes. As failures are hard to mint, and David is calling out a need for more, my 'warning' suggestion is maybe a way of meeting the need without doing normative or quasi normative work. So this suggestion would be firmly in guidance and non normative space.
Tbh, that we don't have lots of hardcore failures may also be a good sign rather than indicate some dearth in WCAG. FWIW, I'm not convinced this thread does call out a substantial problem but if there is real need we will aim to address it.
Regarding WCAG.next topics, in general things we cannot incorporate in current work can be looked at in future versions.
Thanks
Josh
Sent from TypeApp
On 30 Apr 2016, 00:44, at 00:44, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>
>From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:57 PM
>
>
>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 ?
>
>
>
>I would prefer them to be in non-normative techniques, if anywhere, not
>in the guidelines proper.
>
>
>
>I thought we were only talking about what should belong in
>non-normative material in this discussion, yet some people keep
>referring to WCAG Next, so I really don’t understand what is being
>proposed.
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for
>whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received
>this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy,
>distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this
>information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this
>e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>Thank you for your compliance.
>
>________________________________