W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2016

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

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 19:33:00 -0500
Message-Id: <201605040033.u440X6BL005748@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I agree with Jonathan.

In other words, do not add "best practices" as a term to equate to common 
ways to pass, keep the term 'sufficient techniques'.  Leave "best 
practices" to go above and beyond a Success Criteria.
So the suggestion is to add a 4th type, called a "warning" before the 
"failures". The 4 types would be: 

1. Sufficient Techniques (reliable way to pass, quite specific, other ways 
may exist) 
2. Advisory Techniques (common ways to pass, but there may be one or more 
limitations) 
3. [New] Warnings (common ways that pages don?t pass, but don?t 
automatically fail.) 
4. Failures (common ways that pages definitely fail, quite specific).

I also agree with the subject of this thread, that we need to add a "date 
last updated" to the Technique template, so each technique is "dated".  We 
already have the "General and Technology-Specific" techniques, and 
included in each technique is "Testing Technique" section.

So the information would need to be updated in "Understanding Techniques": 
see -  
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20160317/understanding-techniques.html

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 





From:   Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
To:     IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "GLWAI 
Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   05/03/2016 12:45 PM
Subject:        RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and 
Techniques



> 2. Best practices  (common ways to pass)

Currently common ways to pass are sufficient techniques and I like that 
term.  Best practices like advisory techniques in the WCAG context as I 
understand them may go above a success criteria and may not always fully 
address a success criteria in all situations.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Alastair Campbell; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]


>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 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 Wednesday, 4 May 2016 00:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 00:33:43 UTC