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

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

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqpSSLdW=jf-1R0Q7vY8zY=ZCK_RrL3p_YH8tw-ww11Low@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Jason, Sure, I do understand, "Techniques are all non-normative. Thus,
it's a matter for the content author to decide which techniques to
consult when writing or revising Web pages that conform to WCAG. Of
course, it's in their interests to review the most recent techniques
document available, but they can still conform without consulting any
techniques documents at all. If they consult an old document, apply
its techniques, and thereby conform to WCAG, they're still
conforming".

This point had been made more than once  in the long thread, "Let's
add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques   ". Yet the
subject and the first email referred in this thread still seems to
suggest documenting date against every technique is important. My
point is merely that date of the doc is good enough for anyone wanting
to reference a date for any reason.
Sailesh


On 4/26/16, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:
> Today I proposed a failure that I wrote up in issue 173.
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173
> It to ensure authors identify regions of a page programmatically (or with
> text).
> We did not gain consensus and I am dropping the proposal in this
> version of WCAG.
>
> However, I think it points to a significant problem that we will have
> to address in WCAG.NEXT. I would like to propose a solution.
>
> ===Problem===
> WCAG was created to be an ever green document. The SCs are not
> technology dependent, non normative techniques and failures, can be
> created to address new realities that we see on the ground as the web
> develops. This has happened for techniques, but not failures. We have
> created about 150 new techniques since 2008, and only *3* (three)
> failures.
>
> It is not from a lack of failure proposals, there have been plenty in
> 8 years. However, it is almost impossible to gain consensus on a
> failure, because there are always a some voices that will not want to
> tighten things up, for various reasons, some of them I would agree
> with in some situations. Here are the main reasons its hard to pass a
> failure:
>
> 1) Fear that it changes the requirements of WCAG
> 2) If not, a fear that there is a *percieved* change to WCAG
> 3) Fear that pages that once passed will not pass after a new common
> failure is introduced.
>
> ====Solution=====
> Id' like to propose an "Approved date" field, to techniques and
> failures, which would be populated when we gained consensus on a
> technique or failure. This will give jurisdictions a tool to exempt
> failures that were created after a site was built.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub
>
> 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
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 19:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 May 2016 19:49:19 UTC