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

 Gregg wrote: 
> This is an intriguing idea but I worry that too many places or countries even will take “this is a common way to fail” and interpret it as a failure.

Perhaps with a little more obvious structure? On the call just now I suggested we could have four levels:

1. Techniques (definitely passes, quite specific)
2. Best practices (common ways to pass)
3. Warnings (common ways that pages don’t pass, but don’t automatically fail.)
4. Failures (common ways that pages definitely fail, quite specific).

I’m not sure there’s much we can do about Governments requiring techniques or seeing every non-pass as a failure, that would be best tackled by pushing the idea of functional performance vs requirements. 

That also maps to what testing tools tend to do, as they simply can’t fail many things, so have to warn about them.



Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 17:01:11 UTC