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

thanks Alistair,


I’m not sure I see the difference between 1 and 2

they are both ways to pass.    And if we documented them— they are also all probably common.    And what is best practice on a page may not be what is used most commonly.    

Maybe 

Best Practice:  Considered to be the best technique or method for most but not all situations.

==================

For #3 - what does it mean that they are common ways to fail but don’t automatically fail?      Do they manually fail? 

	Perhaps “Warning:  Things that sometimes fail - depending on how they are applied.   Check carefully) 





gregg

> On May 3, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard 
> 
> That also maps to what testing tools tend to do, as they simply can’t fail many things, so have to warn about them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Alastair
> 
>