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: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:31:03 -0500
Cc: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 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: <F1AFF347-01D1-4E27-8629-EBD7BA7341A9@raisingthefloor.org>
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Agree.   

Failures are NEVER normative.   And they are never new.   

Failures are simply documenting things that are ALREADY failures of SC.  They just document things that are commonly done that would fail to meet WCAG to make them obvious to those who do not see them.   

Failures can never add nor subtract from WCAG.     Their full name is    “Common failures of WCAG SC”.    

The only way to add something to WCAG or make something a failure that is not already a failure is to look to future versions as Josh points out. 

gregg

> On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:42 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://www.typeapp.com/r>
> 
> On 30 Apr 2016, at 00:44, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto: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.
> 
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2016 07:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 30 April 2016 07:31:36 UTC