W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > September 2006

[Minutes] WebCGM Telecon 2006-09-14

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:20:42 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
WebCGM WG --

The minutes are at


and also available as text, below.


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                             WebCGM Teleconf
                               14 Sep 2006



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-irc


           Lofton_Henderson, Stuart_Galt, thierry, Don, Dieter

           Dave, Benoit




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]roll call 11:00am ET, membership, agenda
          2. [6]routine WG business
          3. [7]WAI appendix suggestions
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    <lofton> dieter, do you plan to dial in?

    <DW> yes, I will need 5 minutes or so

    Lofton, I will be only able to attend the first hour as I have a
    TTWG telecon at 18h00

    <tmichel> scribe: Thierry

roll call 11:00am ET, membership, agenda

    <tmichel> Absent: Chris

routine WG business

    <tmichel> Lofton is out next week. Should heve the telecon though.

    <tmichel> Volunteer to chair ?

    <tmichel> May have WAI PF to join next week

    <tmichel> 2 weeks from today a week before CR, should lock down the
    language of the Appendix

    Lofton: Thierry or Chris should Chair

    Resolution: Thierry or (and) Chris should Chair next meeting

WAI appendix suggestions

    suggestion from the wAI PF WG

    <lofton> [4a]



    <lofton> [4b]



    two suggested documents 4a and 4b

    at previous URI

    Lofton: Spent some time on these
    ... any overall opinion ?
    ... Have read thierry and Stuart

    Thierry: Why 2 document ?

    Lofton; Proably 2 Ai in WAI PF

    Al and Kantarou

    had conversation with Al yesterday

    and asked them to come next week not today

    should try to answer before their F2F monday or tuesday

    Looking at the suggestions

    Took our first draft appendix and raised some concern

    <tmichel> [4b] says, "The specification of WebCGM applies
    concurrently with the internationalization and accessibility
    recommendations. However, as described in [Essential Components of
    Web Accessibility], several components such as authoring tools,
    media viewers and developers, have to work together to improve Web

    <tmichel> Should use [4a] as basis for E.1

    <tmichel> it explain how it should deal with WAI topic. and in the
    spirit of accessibility

    <tmichel> Stuart: It is appropriate to link to these then add it in
    the appendix

    <tmichel> Thierry/ yes look good to me

    <tmichel_> the following statement should be added (taken from

    <tmichel_> However, as described in [Essential Components of Web
    Accessibility], several components such as authoring tools, media
    viewers and developers, have to work together to improve Web

    <tmichel_> and integrate it into E1

    <tmichel_> it is a good piece of information as a follow on

    <tmichel_> Stuart: thinks we can incorporate into 3rd paragraph in

    <tmichel_> Proposal: approve E.1 of [4a] with addition of the extra

    <tmichel_> looking at E.2

    <tmichel_> E.2 Navigation

    arose because to kentarou original comment to have some way to
    navigate in objects

    when you fill a form can move mouse to bring focus or use tab key is
    a simple exemple

    WAI PF suggest to point out alternative mode of navigation

    tricky section, in normative 2.0 spec, we have not dealt with
    concept of focus

    if come back with a 2.1, will need to say which object can use focus
    (develop explicit model for focus)

    like SVG allows to toogle with object can receive focus

    Dieter: We do not have focus in WebCGM

    lofton with visibility we kind of have a focus functionality

    you are shifting the focus ..

    Dieter: No that is incorrect. The object does not have the focus. No
    keybord input. Mouse import

    <tmichel> No keybord input. We need to define a sementic for it

    <tmichel> define a reaction to that, what is a focus from one object
    to another. There is NO such thing in WebCGM

    <tmichel> therefore we can't support the WAI statement

    <tmichel> Lofton: This is why it is tricky. However, all of the
    adaptive functionality suggested by WAI PF can be supported without
    the explicit focus concept.

    <tmichel> Let's look at our previous wording

    <tmichel> If there is a list of objects the viewer can navigate from
    one object to another.

    <tmichel> This is the text that came from Cologne (but it introduced
    the word "focus", which was a mistake)

    <tmichel_> [UAAG10] only set capabilitiers a user tool should offer

    <tmichel_> Our initial comment out of Cologne say viewers can add
    this capabilities on top of the spec

    <tmichel_> In E2, mean what accessible viewers should do

    <tmichel_> Lofton: What in E2 could be clarified for the accessible
    viewers on top of standard functionalities from the Spec

    <tmichel_> Dieter: Should be a loose language. or define what focus

    <tmichel_> Lofton : Can we fix the wording in E2 and havn't define
    what focus is

    <tmichel_> Stuart: we define interactivity but not focus. Should
    have vague statement

    <tmichel_> Dieter: Are they trying to accomplish something for blind

    <tmichel_> Lofton: or can't use a mouse

    <tmichel_> Navigate to an object and highlight. that we could do but
    not very useful for blind people

    <tmichel> Lofton: should offer a mode equivalent to mouse over

    <tmichel> lofton needs to have a way to navigate from object to
    object. Focus is not integrated with our Normative part

    <tmichel> Lofton: Should propose to remove the focus word (was in
    our first draft of WAI PF)

    <tmichel> Lofton: E2 without having to develop a complete focus

    <tmichel> Stuart: a complete focus model would be for 2.1 or beyond

    <tmichel> Dieter: If you have keybord input what to have the viewers
    to select (like read the screen tip). introce selection mode

    <tmichel> Dieter: Not sure we should go this route, not on the
    requirement list nor in the spec. therefoer the all concept needs to
    be specified

    Lofton: Their original comment did not use the word focus. We
    introduced it. Therefore could rewrite to remove it
    ... an accessible viewer should have these capabilities. would
    satisfy their comment and UUAG
    ... emphasis is on the capability, not standardizing specific
    keyboard sequence to invoke the capability
    ... recommend the capability, not specific techniques, and that
    satisfies UAAG (I think)
    ... The issue is Using a concept of focus as it was not a Normative
    concept in the Spec.
    ... It make sense outside the concept of focus
    ... Identify the problem. proposed a solution or discuss it at our
    next telecon with WAI
    ... Would prefer to come with a simple solution to avoid the focus
    word in the 2 paragrahs.

    <tmichel> Dieter: I will be travelling all week, can not take any AI

    <tmichel> Thierry: Are there other issues?

    <tmichel> Lofton: E.3 is a useful clarification

    <tmichel> E4: was a proposed addition at the end

    <tmichel> Lofton: Mabe a problem in E4. only talk about visibility
    not interactivity. We did not bring it up

    <tmichel> Stuart/ when E2 is resolved E4 should be easy

    <tmichel> Lofton/ Very low time next week

    <tmichel> Lofton: Could you take this AI to revise E2 and E4

    <tmichel> Stuart: Ok will do. A lot of this navigation needs a well
    thought structure

    <tmichel> OK i must Go, already late for TTWG. Will talk to you on

    <tmichel> Bye

    <lofton> thanks thierry

    <lofton> I agree with Stuart's comment, that is the point of
    "Essential components..." -- that various components must cooperate
    to make an accessible experience

    <lofton> Summary of agreement: there is a problem with the language
    of E.2 and E.4, because of "focus".

    <lofton> "focus" is not explicitly treated in the normative parts of
    WebCGM 2.0.

    <lofton> Therefore it is something of an undefined concept in E.2
    and E.4.

    <Stuart> E.2, and E.4 could be rewritten to exclude the concept of

    <Stuart> Focus should be developed fully at a later time.

    <lofton> We think that the dealing explicitly with the concept of
    "focus" can and should be avoided till a later version of WebCGM,
    e.g. 2.1.

    <lofton> And we think it can be removed from the discussions of E.2
    and E.4 without impacting the recommended accessibility

    <lofton> ACTION: Stuart to propose new wording for E.2 and E.4, send
    to WG list, due Friday afternoon. [recorded in

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html#action01

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Propose new wording for E.2 and E.4,
    send to WG list, due Friday afternoon. [on Stuart Galt - due

    <lofton> The telecon tentatively thought E.3 was okay -- a useful
    clarification and elaboration of previous draft (Stuart to check and

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Stuart to propose new wording for E.2 and E.4, send to
    WG list, due Friday afternoon. [recorded in

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html#action01

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.127
     ([14]CVS log)
     $Date: 2006/09/14 17:17:11 $

      [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03
Check for newer version at [15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002

      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/it as a 3rd sentence/into 3rd paragraph/
Succeeded: s/without addition/with addition of the extra sentence/
Succeeded: s/There is such thing in WebCGM/There is NO such thing in We
Found Scribe: Thierry
Inferring ScribeNick: thierry
Default Present: Lofton_Henderson, Stuart_Galt, thierry, Don, Dieter
Present: Lofton_Henderson Stuart_Galt thierry Don Dieter
Regrets: Dave
Agenda: [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Se
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Sep 2006
Guessing minutes URL: [17]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.h
People with action items: stuart

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

    End of [18]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 17:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC