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

[WCAG 1.0 Errata] Process questions (was: Re: [WCAG 1.0 Errata: Issue #14] Checkpoint 10.2)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:37:28 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040120133358.015e7fb8@localhost>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

At 04:38 PM 1/16/2004, Joe Clark wrote:
>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."

We wish to publish a Revised Recommendation.  There are three classes of 
changes [1] that we can make:
1.  No changes to text content (These changes include fixing broken links 
or invalid markup.)
2. Corrections that do not affect conformance (Editorial changes or 
clarifications that do not change the technical content of the specification.)
3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features
These changes MAY affect conformance to the Recommendation. A change that 
affects conformance is one that:
- turns conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents into 
non-conforming agents, or
- turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or
- clears up an ambiguity or underspecified part of the specification in 
such a way that an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly 
conforming or non-conforming.

New features need to go through the W3C Recommendation track. Since we are 
working on WCAG 2.0, new features will not be addressed in WCAG 1.0 errata 
but in WCAG 2.0.  The table of errata [2] will list all possible WCAG 1.0 
errata to address then the WCAG WG will categorize the errata into the 
above 3 categories or as new features.  We will also determine which of 
those errata we wish to address at this time;  while we want to clarify as 
much of WCAG 1.0 as we can, we do not want to delay progress on WCAG 2.0.

The table of possible errata may seem heavily weighted with until user 
agents clauses because:
1. there are 13 checkpoints that contain "until user agents,"
2. interpreting "until user agents" has been one of the murkiest areas for 
people who are trying to determine conformance,
3. finding consensus on these 13 checkpoints will likely be the hardest 
part of the process.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#correction-classes>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag10-errata-table.html>

>Also, what is to be done about the CSS Techniques for WCAG 1.0 document?

We are working on CSS Techniques for WCAG 2.0 and have discussed the 
following possibilities:
1. generate two drafts. one that is geared towards WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and 
another that is geared towards WCAG 2.0 guidelines.
2. generate one draft that references both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0.

If we publish one draft, it will contain unstable references to WCAG 2.0 
and will be difficult to publish as a Working Group Note. Thus, it seems 
likely that we will generate one draft specific to WCAG 1.0 and publish 
that as a Working Group Note (as we publish a revised WCAG 1.0) and in 
parallel generate a draft specific to WCAG 2.0 (as we publish public WCAG 
2.0 Working Drafts). Ultimately (after WCAG 2.0 is stable), does it make 
sense to publish one draft that references both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0?  One 
document is probably easier for the group to generate but confusing for a 
reader to use.  We need to do some usability research to determine the 
design. This is an open issue for the WCAG WG to discuss.

>It is very easy to ask three or four people to test on their systems
...
>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.

My goal for this particular piece was to start discussion, to air known 
issues, to find existing test results and resources on the Web, and to 
determine what looked like solid information versus what needed more 
testing.  I would like to use tests from the following test suites. Where 
they are missing tests that we need we should either work with the WGs to 
create the tests or provide some of our own (in their formats). Currently, 
neither have an appropriate test for the label element.

1. The HTML Test suite, forms
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/HTML401/current/tests/section17.html>
2. UAAG 1.0 Test Suite for HTML 4.01
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/html401/>

More tests are at:
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/html40-test/ (1998)
http://www.hixie.ch/tests/evil/mixed/home.html (primarily for CSS)

Jenae and Chris have been looking at the UAAG test suite for HTML and (I 
hope) plan to talk more about that at tomorrow's Techniques Task Force 
telecon.

--wendy

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/-- 
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 14:37:39 UTC

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