- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:12:48 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 22/09/2020 20:29, Wayne Dick wrote: > Finally, I think accessibility auditors should call this out as a > failure of 1.4.10. I don't think that this needs to be done in a heavy > handed way. There's no "light touch" way of saying something fails. It either passes or fails. Auditors should really only fail something if it fails the normative wording of an SC. If this is a case of "we always intended it to mean this/apply to this/fail this", then that probably needs to be discussed as a substantive change/errata? Or at the very least needs to be fully explained in the understanding document? > No new SC or formal fail case is needed. If not even providing a formal fail case, I find it difficult to say that auditors should fail these situations though. Unless what you mean is that these situations would nominally pass, but you're suggesting that auditors should nonetheless advise (above and beyond the normative requirements of WCAG) > All we need is a > clear technique that helps developers do the right thing. Positive techniques are only informative, of course. Good to have, but NOT adhering to a technique is not grounds for a fail. So if the intention is indeed to fail things, this needs to be made clear I'd say. P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke -- Inclusive Design 24 (#id24) https://inclusivedesign24.org
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2020 01:13:15 UTC