- From: Mitchell Evan <mtchllvn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 17:28:08 +0000
- To: "Ta, Duc" <duc.ta.740@my.csun.edu>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, 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: <CAK=xW6s-8XznVDpVOdrYRmkQ8=R3R1WBx7=tB3fnm0CyiLy6ow@mail.gmail.com>
"Last Date Revised or Reviewed" -- - This is good. Better yet, show both dates. - As an end user of WCAG Techniques, I want to understand when something without the difficulty of digging through Github revisions, so I can talk about it with my colleagues. - Alternatively (and maybe even easier for me as the end user), give me a page of revision history for the whole site. Failures -- - I agree about all of the challenges around documenting failures. - How about "examples of WCAG failures"? They could live outside of Techniques if necessary. By presenting them just as examples, they can be as technology-specific and context-specific as you want. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:12 AM Ta, Duc <duc.ta.740@my.csun.edu> wrote: > I think it would be great if we can have a "Last Revised Date" so people > can know that the techniques/failures are up-to-date. For the warning one, > I don't think we should have it. If the page doesn't pass this failure > checkpoint, we can add additional related failure checkpoints to that > checkpoints. By doing that, people can test with those checkpoints before > drawing a conclusion that the page does not pass this criteria. > > For WCAG 2.1, I'm a little bit confused with the model. It seems to > indicate that mobile, vision and cognitive will merge with WCAG 2.0 > conformance. If that is the case, why there won't be any new Failure > checkpoints. Are those checkpoints from those 3 groups will just be under > Sufficient/ Advisory Techniques? Will they have their own success criteria? > > > Regards, > Duc Ta > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden < > gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > >> *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 >> >> > -- Mitchell Evan mtchllvn@gmail.com +1 (510) 375-6104
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 17:35:30 UTC