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

Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:37:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqooctGqkvDrPydCLb8Wy-evNZehNbyqrkpo_Z6B47u0xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "wuyinghua@ritt.cn" <wuyinghua@ritt.cn>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Is there really a need for a date for techniques / failures?
The date of publication of the Techniques  doc is the date it applies
from. If this is not clear, a single sentence may be added that says
Web content   certified as compliant or  pages that made a conformance
claim, say , in the previous year, may surely refer to the techniques
doc in effect at that time.
If Web content changes  and needs to be re-certified, it will be with
reference to the latest techniques doc.
Consider technique H80 was in the books till it was deleted in 2014.
A link's context could be determined with reference to the previous
heading tag in order to pass SC 2.4.4.  And pages did claim
conformance based on H80.
But not any more. i.e. if that page is being re-audited today because
of change in some content.

Another problem with technique specific date: it is possible that only
some part of description is changed or an example is changed or a test
is modified. Will a date be noted against every change?

Will this be  practical from point of view of administering  /
tracking changes or using the documentation?  I think not.
Best wishes,
Sailesh Panchang
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 18:43:04 UTC

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