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

Re: warning category for techniques / failures.

From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 09:24:26 +0000
To: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "IG - WAI Interest Group List list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em7bd2cd3d-2418-4298-bfec-95f85d57d415@josh_machine>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
[...]
>
>I’m sure some of the testers on the list could come up with many 
>examples. I’ll do a starter for 10 to give some examples:
>
>- Data table doesn’t have a visible caption.
>- No visible label for a form field.
>- Related fields are not grouped with a fields & legend
>- Main heading is not an H1
>- Submit button isn’t at the bottom of the form.
>- Icon doesn’t have supporting text.
>- Use of 'click here' / 'read more’.

Thanks for those Alastair - the a11y auditor in me likes these. I'm also 
warming more to a 'softer' set of techniques that effectively
act as a heads up. In practice this could be very useful and bride a gap 
between 'Success' and 'Failure'. This could be useful from
a teaching perspective also.

Thanks

Josh

>
>None of these are definitely failures, but the presence of them on a 
>page rings warning bells!
>Many automated tools have a ‘warning’ category for things they pick up 
>but cannot be sure are failures.
>
>Obviously we could come up with millions of these, so it should be 
>‘common’ ones rather than all. We could even ask a testing tool person 
>to see if they have any aggregate stats on these.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>-Alastair
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 09:22:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 09:22:57 UTC