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

Re: warning category for techniques / failures.

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:00:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP499C793F1101F01BFB44A1FE7C0@phx.gbl>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Here's my problem with the suggestion about "warning, this needs a further

This is a classic warning that we find in automated tools.... but we are
not limiting our evaluation to automated tools... in fact evaluations in
WCAG are supposed to be accurate and comprehensive which include automated
and human error checking and suggested end user testing...

So the proposed warning category says... "we know you checked really well,
but now you have to check further..." and we can't say whether this is a
failure or not...

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902



GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>

*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> this is better wording than mine.
> hmmm   ‘technique”      maybe  situation?   (hate to confuse techniques
> and failures - more than we already did by putting them into one doc)
> *gregg*
> On May 5, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Warning = common technique that should trigger a further check because in
> many contexts it would not meet the SC.
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2016 20:03:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:58 UTC