Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques

Hi Alistair,

>Joshue O Connor wrote:
>>  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.
>Surely the reason that failures are so hard to mint is the “multiple 
>ways to pass” approach that WCAG took?
>(And I’m obviously saying this with plenty of hindsight! I didn’t think 
>of this at the time.)
I'd say that is correct, but I'm relatively 'new' to the group so wasn't 
a part of those discussions.
>If there are 3 techniques to pass an SC, the absence of one of those 
>techniques cannot be a failure.
>If a failure must always be a failure, there cannot be another way to 
Indeed. And there may also (read 'will') be other methods of satisfying 
an SC that isn't in the WCAG canon of techniques.
>The more technologies (e.g. ARIA) there are available, the more ways 
>there are to pass, the harder it is to create new failures.
>I like the idea of warnings, or at least some way to say ‘this is a 
>common way to fail’ without it being absolutist.
Right. +1 from me, as I think the push for failures comes from a binary 
need. And a11y is not the most exact science. I'm on the fence about 
driving a 'warnings' category but it does seem something that could be 
useful to say - 'Here is a common problematic pattern for UI x - its not 
good practice, and heres a link to a better technique.



>It could also provide more context about the technology, e.g. ‘if ARIA 
>is part of your Accessibility Supported list, then if is a failure not 
>to use landmarks for 1.3.1’.

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 08:57:47 UTC