W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2000

minutes from last week

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:27:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004251421470.17634-100000@tux.w3.org>
Finally online. ANyone who want to read them before the call (better
hurry) at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/19apr00 or included below

Charles


   [1]W3C [2]Web Accessibility Initiative 
   
   [3]WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
   
                     WAI AU Teleconference - 19 April 2000
                                       
Details

   Chair: Jutta Treviranus
   
   Date: Wednesday 19 April 2000
   
   Time: 4:00pm - 5:30pm Boston time (2000Z - 2130Z)
   
   Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Agenda

   The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at
   [4]http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest
   techniques draft is dated 8 March, available at
   [5]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000308. Note that a new
   techniques draft is expected by the time of the meeting.
    1. [6]Review outstanding action items
    2. [7]New techniques draft to Interest Group
    3. [8]Other business
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Attendance

     * Dick Brown
     * Jutta Treviranus
     * Charles McCathieNevile
     * Jan RIchards
     * Marjolein Katsma
     * William Loughborough
       
  Regrets
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Action Items and Resolutions

     * Action CMN: Remove "Amaya doesn't do this" from techniques.
     * Action JA: Review Frontpage.
     * Action JT Send notes on prompt and alert definitions to list.
     * Action MK cycle thread on 7.1 techniques with development team.
     * Action PJ: Propose text for keyboard accessibility in techniques
       for 7.1
     * Resolved: Replace "Techniques for this guideline" sections with
       links to the Appendix
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Minutes

Action item review

     * Action GR: Review Frontpage.
       Outstanding
     * Action JA: Review Frontpage.
       Outstanding
     * Action JT Send notes on prompt and alert definitions to list.
       Outstanding
     * Action MK cycle thread on 7.1 techniques with development team.
       Unknown
     * Action PJ: Propose text for keyboard accessibility in techniques
       for 7.1
       Outstanding
       
New Techniques Draft

   Present draftCMN default will be ATAG
   
   JT the samples are more an evaluation than a sample implementation.
   
   Action CMN get rid of "amaya doesn't do this"
   
   /* pj leaves
   
   JT after 4 we have techniques for the guideline. Can we integrate
   these?
   
   CMN my approach is to get rid of the section after 4 as supreseded,
   but I will not do it unilaterally.
   
   Proposed: remove the section and link to the appendix
   
   WL suits me
   
   MK suits me
   
   Resolved: Replace "Techniques for this guideline" sections with links
   to the Appendix
   
Other Business - prompts

   JT I proposed we remove the restriction on prompt that it requires
   author response. charles felt we should keep the requirement for
   author response. One concern is about constantly interrupting the
   author, but it has been pointed out that we do not dictate when
   prompting should occur
   
   WL This doesn't have to do with configurability?
   
   JT It does, and also with how we define prompt.
   
   CMN I think we should make it clear in 3.1 that an author respose is
   required, but there is scope for configuring when.
   
   WL I don't find it mutually exclusive to interrupt and encourage if
   you can configure
   
   JR Issue comes up when the prompt is part of a larger prompt
   
   JT charles you are suggesting that a prompt requires an immediate
   response.
   
   CMN Yes.
   
   MK It can be ignored
   
   CMN You can dismiss the prompt
   
   DB generally a prompt is awaiting input. I don't think we should start
   using it otherwise
   
   JT There are other definitions
   
   DB Right, but in this area it is the most common
   
   WL Is a cursor a prompt?
   
   CMN No, it is an alert
   
   DB Yeah
   
   JT A prompt means you can't go on
   
   JR What about a dialog window that doesn't require anything, but are
   there
   
   DB THey are not prompts
   
   WL You can go on without typing anything there
   
   CMN They are alerts
   
   JT We are moving towards a restrictive definition, which Heather was
   concerned about
   
   DB I am not sure if we were talking about definition or how often they
   wree required
   
   DB There is a fine line between prompts and alerts
   
   JT THe crux is when you have to deal with it? But do you have to deal
   with it then and there
   
   DB So is the issue about configurability?
   
   JT The issue is whether we require the user to make a response
   
   MK For me it doesn't require information - you don't have to fill in
   the fields
   
   WL But for other people it has different meaning
   
   DB At Microsoft the program managers will think of something that
   makes you stop.
   
   MK That isn't how I understood it
   
   JT When we wrote this I thought we had a more lenient definition
   
   CMN No, I thought the crux wsa that prompt required a response
   
   JR Can't we just use prompts and alerts?
   
   JT Alert doesn't work well as a term
   
   MK I think a prompt is something that asks something and an alert is
   something that points
   
   JT We need a word for something that encourages you to respond or
   asks, without requiring response
   
   CMN dialogue?
   
   DB MSPress doesn't have alert in the same way... Generally I tink
   people consider a prompt as something that asks for information
   
   JR text, or choose actions?
   
   WL Any - something that reuires you to respond.JR So something that
   says you have a problem, and just asks for an OK, is a prompt?
   
   CMN yes
   
   MK I don't see it like that
   
   CMN The difference in our functrional definitions leads to the
   conclusionJT I see that there are problems in understanding the terms
   according to our definitions
   
   JR example of issue - an attribute that you don't have to fill in.
   
   CMN you may have an image dialogue asking for src, alt, etc. It is a
   dialogue, but not a prompt for missing content
   
   WL Right
   
   MK If you have a dialog with a number of fields, then the part that
   requires a response is where you press OK or cancel. FOr other fields
   you can still ignore them. Ther are different levels of where a
   response is required.
   
   CMN There are examples were you have to deal with some fields in a
   dialog
   
   JR The user can't tell if it is a prompt or an alert
   
   CMN Sure, but that's OK. functional equivalence - you have to respond
   to the specific issue, then it is a prompt
   
   DB Generally things tat are prompts aren't really asking for values to
   be filled in. It would be a hybrid if we had something that popped up
   and says you haen't done alt text
   
   JT Problem is that there is an understanding of what it means. We have
   it in our guidelines.
   
   MK We have to make very clear how we define the term, so different
   develepors can be sure they understand.
   
   DB/JT The example given in the definition does not match the
   definition
   
   DB There are also questions of whan and how we want people to be
   alerted - what are the requirements
   
   JT What is the consensus - does a prompt defnitely require a respone?
   
   JR Scenario: dialog comes up with lots of questions, you leave alt
   out, and then get prompted to add it and get the dialog back, and you
   jsut dismiss it
   
   CMN That includes a prompt
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   [9]Copyright    2000 [10]W3C ([11]MIT, [12]INRIA, [13]Keio ), All
   Rights Reserved. W3C [14]liability, [15]trademark, [16]document use
   and [17]software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this
   site are in accordance with our [18]public and [19]Member privacy
   statements.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Last Modified $Date: 2000/04/25 18:20:20 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
   2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
   3. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU
   4. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210/
   5. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000308
   6. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/19apr00#Action
   7. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/19apr00#Techniques
   8. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/19apr00#Other
   9. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Copyright
  10. http://www.w3.org/
  11. http://www.lcs.mit.edu/
  12. http://www.inria.fr/
  13. http://www.keio.ac.jp/
  14. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Legal Disclaimer
  15. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C Trademarks
  16. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
  17. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
  18. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Public
  19. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Members
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 14:27:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:44 UTC