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 23:21:45 -0500
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OF56E666E9.F6038EBB-ON86257FA9.00149DE9-86257FA9.0017F7A4@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Gregg wrote:
> Do not understand 
>
3. [New] Warnings (common ways that pages don?t pass, but don?t 
automatically fail.) 
>
> What does this mean?
>
> If the page doesn?t pass ? it fails.   
> If they don?t automatically fail how are they failing? 

> There has to be a better way to say this.   I would try but I don?t know 
what it is trying to say. 

well, I should have removed the term "pages" from the phrase: "(common 
ways that pages might not pass, but don?t automatically fail either.)"
because of earlier comments in this thread about suggested failures that 
didn't get accepted because they only fail the criteria in certain 
situations, but not all situations.  I think there were some cited 
WAI-ARIA cases, for example. The automated tools use a concept of "needs 
to be manually checked" as a warning, and perhaps Others?

As the Understanding Note says: "Content that has a failure does not meet 
WCAG success criteria, unless an alternate version is provided without the 
failure."

        Common Failures all on one page 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20160317/failures.html

Many, but no all, of these Failures are very similar sounding to the 
inverse of meeting Success Criteria itself, so some but not a lot of value 
add here inn the Failures...
 
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 





From:   Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
To:     Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:     Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG 
org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   05/03/2016 08:13 PM
Subject:        Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and 
Techniques



agree with 

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) 


Also agree that best practice is above being sufficient. Unfortunately - I 
think what is best practice sometimes depends on the page ? so I?m not 
sure we can always label something as best practice.  But I DO think we 
can (and already do) name some things as best practices for some things. 



Do not understand 

3. [New] Warnings (common ways that pages don?t pass, but don?t 
automatically fail.) 

What does this mean?

If the page doesn?t pass ? it fails. 
If they don?t automatically fail how are they failing? 

There has to be a better way to say this.   I would try but I don?t know 
what it is trying to say. 




RE Dating - 
I think we should have  ?Last Date Revised or Reviewed.?   Really good 
ones will be reviewed periodically and found to be just right as they are. 
  They should then be dated with that review so they are not re-reviewed 
every year because their last  ?revision? date was so long ago. 



ciao 

gregg
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 04:22:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 04:22:38 UTC