>> If it is a failure, it was always a failure. We can’t define a new situation that fails when it didn’t before. We are just documenting it now for informational value — for convenience.Can you help me understand this? I don't think documenting something makes it a new failure...Google is documenting the roads in North America, but they existed before the documentation. There may be a number of reasons for adding a failure technique: - it may be more of a problem now than it was in the past even though it always was a technical failure - we may have overlooked it even though the success criteria clearly indicate it as a failure (i.e., not identifying regions in text or programatically) - elegant solutions may have emerged that cause us to want to enforce a failure more proactively - confusion may have arisen in the interpretation of a Sc, and the failure helps add clarity 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 8:03 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:23 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > However, documenting a date when we created a failure (or last approved) > might give jurisdictions information that they might find useful when they > are making policy and/or laws. > > > Hi David - I don’t understand this statement. Documenting a failure - > does not make it a new failure. > > If it is a failure, it was always a failure. We can’t define a new > situation that fails when it didn’t before. > We are just documenting it now for informational value — for convenience. > > Can you help me understand this? > > > > > By the way — a whole heartedly agree with dating Techs & Failures to help > in determining when they should be reviewed. > > in that case though I would suggest the date be “LAST REVIEWED ON “ > rather than when they were created. > > > > Gregg > > >Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 15:20:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:58 UTC