Re: warning category for techniques / failures.

I'm agree with that. I think warning should be something that needs to
check and verify manually to know whether the page actually fails that
checkpoint or not.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> thanks
>
> I can see the value of warnings.   I just don’t think you should say they
> are common ways that things don’t pass   (which means    “common failures”
>  because not passing means failure).
>
> because that become    "Common failures that don’t automatically fail”
>
> maybe something like
>
>
> Warning = something that needs to be manually checked because conformance
> changes for different contexts.
>
> or some such.
>
> tough to figure out how to say it
>
> *gregg*
>
> On May 4, 2016, at 3:16 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Gregg wrote:
>
> "Do not understand:
> 3. [New] Warnings (common ways that pages don’t pass, but don’t
> automatically fail.)
>
> What does this mean?
>
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> It is trying to say that: If your page does X, it probably fails. We are
> not 100% sure it fails, you might have passed some other way, but you’d
> better check.
>
> There are probably more things we can document under a ‘warnings’ category
> than failures, as they don’t’ have to be 100% failures in all
> circumstances.
>
> 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’.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>