W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Errata and future versions

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:48:05 -0400
Message-Id: <a06001803bb226aa5da91@[]>
To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

OK, for example, these two messages--


-- discuss the errors in WCAG 1.0, and Phill mentioned the idea of 
errata for WCAG 1.0, which someone else had brought up a while ago. 
Kynn, I think.

So: What are we gonna do here?

1. Divert mindshare and time to produce a WCAG 1.0 errata document, 
which I believe would be hugely useful for real-world developers but 
would take weeks or months of discussion and also require pushing 1.0 
through a sieve to find all the errata. And 1.0 is an old, dead, 
deficient specification. We'd be exhuming a mummy and giving it a 
haircut and manicure, essentially.

2. Keep working on WCAG 2.0 such that 2.0 includes all the fixes for 
the errata of 1.0.

I know I am months behind, *months* behind, evaluating the entirety 
of 2.0 for its errors. I got through like five pages and even that 
took nearly an hour to annotate on paper, and would require twice 
that time just to type out the errors. These days I'm responding to 
specific requests to propose improvements to multimedia-related 
guidelines as a focus for my time.

So I don't personally know what to do to contribute to the 
guidelines, don't know what we should all do, don't know whether 
WAI-IG is the better list than -GL to talk about this, yet am still 
very attracted to the idea of a 1.0 errata document instead even 
though I know it would take time away from developing 2.0, which is 
already likely to be late.


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 17:47:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC