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: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:25:19 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP21EA334FF2E66573193B78FE790@phx.gbl>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.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>
That would work for me...

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 Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

>
>
> On May 1, 2016, at 6:46 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
> Dates on techniques don’t concern me as much as dates on “failures” would
> do. The latter can be misinterpreted as implying that a given practice
> wasn’t a failure before a certain date but became a failure thereafter,
> whereas we’ve established in this discussion that if a documented practice
> constitutes a failure to conform to WCAG 2.0, then it always was and always
> will be a failure to conform to WCAG 2.0.
>
>
>
> Agree.
>
> would using “Last Reviewed Date”  get around your concern?
>
> that would make it clear it was related to reviewing rather than dates
> that things apply.
>
Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 11:25:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 11:25:51 UTC