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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alastair Campbell []

>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

I like the proposal.

>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.

I also think there's a definite limit to the extent to which this working group should design documents in ways that seek to prevent misinterpretation or misapplication. Clarity and precision are important, but beyond those measures, I think the task of educating people (governments included) lies outside our scope.


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 Tuesday, 3 May 2016 17:27:24 UTC