W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: [WCAG 1.0 Errata: Issue #14] Checkpoint 10.2

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:38:30 -0500
Message-Id: <a06001f72bc2b74c4fd25@[192.168.1.100]>
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

>This is the first in a series of proposals to address errata in WCAG 1.0.

Please answer this question: Does the Working Group plan to address 
*all* errata or only the single category of errata begrudgingly 
accepted as such, the "until user agents" clauses? There does seem to 
be a concentration on the latter in 
<http://www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag10-errata-table.html>, though there 
are quite a few other entries. The tone of WAI-GL postings recently, 
and IRC logs, has been "Well, yes, we will concede now that the 
'until user agents' clauses are a problem, but really, that's as far 
as we're willing to go." For example, from another message:

>>We have discussed deprecating some of the checkpoints that have 
>>"until user agents" clauses in them. If a checkpoint is deprecated 
>>it is no longer required for conformance. For example, if we 
>>deprecate checkpoint 10.5 [0], authors no longer need to include 
>>non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between 
>>adjacent links. There are 13 WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that use the 
>>"until user agents" clause.

The mailing list has many postings calling for corrections of *all* 
known errata. The claim that some issues are in dispute does not 
invalidate the fact that the "until user agents" clauses *are not the 
only known errata*.

Also, what is to be done about the CSS Techniques for WCAG 1.0 
document? (The current similar draft for WCAG 2.0 is noticeably poor 
and outdated and it would be an easier task to fix the existing one.)

>1. Disclaimer: I have gathered information from Web sites who have 
>published test results of various browsers and screen readers.

It is very easy to ask three or four people to test on their systems 
(or 12 or 13, as I had to do in my FIR article). That way you get 
multiple screen readers (I got results from three flavours of Jaws, 
Window-Eyes, IBM HPR, *and* Hal *and* OutSpoken) and a zillion 
browsers (off the top of my head, candidates include Lynx, W3M, 
Links, Safari, IE on Mac and Windows, Mozilla, Firebird, Opera, 
Konqueror, Amaya, Netscape [but not Netscape 4, unless we include its 
data for laughs], and derivatives of KDE/Gecko/IE-based browsers).

This is not a difficult thing to arrange. We just need REALLY CLEAR 
AND CONCISE test pages that are not visually nauseating for us to 
send around. Simple postings on Webdesign-L and CSS-Discuss will 
result in responses within minutes. Plus, the 
UVIP-Web-Test@YahooGroups list is in existence for just this sort of 
thing.

You don't have to limit yourselves to published data. This is in no 
way onerously difficult and hypothetical. *Ask people to test it for 
you*. They will, in most cases.


-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org | <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 16:40:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC