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: Mitchell Evan <mtchllvn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 17:28:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK=xW6s-8XznVDpVOdrYRmkQ8=R3R1WBx7=tB3fnm0CyiLy6ow@mail.gmail.com>
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>
"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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 17:35:30 UTC