- From: Gregg Vanderheiden GPII <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:42:20 -0400
- To: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <9D8F5C43-8F3A-4C3C-8412-0716888CD7B6@GPII.net>
Hi I don’t know what this refers to (no context) so I speaking a little bit in the dark here but….. two thoughts that MIGHT apply if people with disabilities have no more problem than everyone else without disabilities - then it is not an accessibility problem - it is usability and WCAG doesn’t cover non-accessibility issues. if the blank page IS an accessibility alternate to something then it is a failure of whatever it is an alternative to Gregg > On Oct 6, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote: > > On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:07:32 +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote: > >> Dear Giacomo, >> >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:34:48 +0200, Giacomo Petri >> <giacomopetri89@gmail.com> wrote: >> > [...] >>> Display a blank page without any error message is considered a WCAG failure? >> >> I don't think there is any success criteria in WCAG that this would fail, >> so strictly speaking I would answer no. But like you, I think it is a >> clear accessibility failure. Given a mechanism to determine that a user >> has not enabled a feature that a page needs in order to function, I think >> the page should explain that to the user. This would fit under the >> principle of Understandable, and even in the spirit of guideline 3.2 >> Predictable: Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways. >> >> I'll check, and if there isn't one raise an issue on the Guidelines... > > And filed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/423 > > cheers > > -- > Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile > find more at http://yandex.com >
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 12:42:50 UTC