You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 29, 2019. It is now read-only.
As WCAG2 consists of Failures and Techniques, a distinction between both might be essential to compare tools. With Just Accessible we started focusing on detection of WCAG2 techniques ('make sure that at least one of the following techniques is used..') and not the WCAG2 failures. Not sure if at the end this approach is better than focusing on the failures.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No change - This document explicitly excludes point-for-point checking of accessibility features. Besides, WCAG2 Techniques and Failures are not exhaustive and exclusive. Such an approach could lead to unwanted limitations, such as the exclusion of technologies and accessibility features for which there are no documented (W3C) techniques. See this FAQ http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#techsnot
Reference
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tools/2014Aug/0004
Original Comment
As WCAG2 consists of Failures and Techniques, a distinction between both might be essential to compare tools. With Just Accessible we started focusing on detection of WCAG2 techniques ('make sure that at least one of the following techniques is used..') and not the WCAG2 failures. Not sure if at the end this approach is better than focusing on the failures.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: