- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:18:19 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
WAI GL Teleconference
23 March 1999
Present:
Greg Vanderheiden (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Eric Hansen
Jason White
Daniel Dardailler
Judy Brewer
Chuck Letourneau
Al Gilman
Charles McCathieNevile
Agenda is the issues list [1]
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-issues
Reference document:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990316/
Table of issues raised during last call and
their resolutions:
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcgl-last-call
1) Action Editors:
- Review archives to see who's been participating.
- Publish tonight current state of document for the WG.
- Ensure proper URI (without prefix) for PR.
- WAI-WEBCONTENT
2) Issue 42. Proposed to remove class="nav" from checkpoint example
JW: Proper use of the class attribute.
GV: The "hack" part is creating a pseudo-standard for UAs.
That's not in a W3C standard.
RESOLVED: Move to techniques
3) Issue 43. What does "sounds that are played automatically" mean?
GV: You open a page and it begins to talk to you. Or you
paged down. No clues to users who can't hear or
have sound turned off.
Proposed GV: "(e.g., page open)".
EH: Do we need to qualify visual notification?
GV: Ensure that visual notification has to be in text.
4) Issue 44. How many shortcuts to links?
CL: 100,000 shortcuts are useless.
AG: Is best current practice to provide access to
all links.
Consensus that best practice is selective access keys.
CMN: Provide keyboard shortcuts to facilitate navigation
of the document.
GV: On form controls, not about navigation, about activation.
AG: They're both there. Can separate movement to from activation.
/* Some disagreement between activation model depending
on user agent */
JW: Don't imply that the shortcut with activate the link.
Don't imply behaviors.
RESOLVED: Add the word "important"
/* Editorial change: make sure reads clearly:
put image maps in parens */
EH: Please raise in UA group as well.
5) Issue 45.
JW: Given what we've said about scripts (provide an
alternative), the issue doesn't arise. To the
extents scripts are supported, the issue
only partially arises.
CMN: Extra links is bad HTML use.
GV: If guidelines followed, will this be prevented?
CMN: Yes, allowing device-independent access will eliminate
the problem.
AG: Specific conflict: no browser-specific issues.
People are are generating spurious links to get things
to work with IE. Greg Lowney raised this.
JW: This is an implementation issue.
Action Al: Send comment about addressing this
to GL and UA lists.
6) Issue 46.
Say anything about "title" for images?
RESOLVED: No.
7) Issue 47.
How is "summary" supposed to be used to indicate a table is for
layout?
GV: Does this mean that there's a code word as value?
JW: If you do it, do it with class, not summary!
CM: Content developers should say what's in the table
in "summary"
AG: This is a level of details in techniques we should
push.
JW: We recommend use of tables for layout anyway. Reluctant
to endorse anything
AG: "title" is a better place than "summary" for this.
RESOLVED: Delete
'Use the "summary" attribute to explain that the table is a layout
table.'
8) Checkpoint 7.2
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JanMar/0505.html)
GV: Change the word "COLUMN" to "LEVEL" since multiple levels
of headers may all be in one column
RESOLVED:
For data tables that have two or more logical levels
of row or column headers use markup to
associate data cells and header cells.
JW: Explain this in techniques.
9) Issue 48.
Priority of grouping related links?
GV: Is this a severe usability problem?
AG: It occurs in nature, in combo with other flaws.
RESOLVED: Leave priority 3. In keeping with dfns of priorities.
10) Issue 49.
Ensure that content is organized properly.
GV: I talked to PJ about this. First word as a verb.
RESOLVED: It's ok for checkpoints to not start with a
verb for "until" and conditional cases.
GV: Proposed a sentence as the end: "if style sheets
are turned off."
CMN: Table markup can destroy structure, can't be turned off.
AG: Some people are using scripts to do things we want
them to do with style sheets.
RESOLVED: New wording:
"Organize content logically using appropriate
structural markup so the organization remains
clear even when associated style sheets are turned off
or are not supported."
/* Add dfn of programmatic object */
11) Issue 50.
Making scripts accessible.
(See 8.2)
a) Proposed checkpoint
Technique: Use server-side scripts with forms.
Technique: use NOSCRIPT.
RESOLVED: Replace 8.2 with:
Ensure that a page is usable when
scripts are turned off or not supported.
If this is not possible,
provide equivalent mechanisms
on an alternative page. P1.
(For example, in HTML use server-side script or NOSCRIPT.)
b) Keyboard operability. P2.
AG: This is different from 10.1. This is about scripts
in "on*" events. They don't have interfaces.
Is this a GL issue or a UA issue?
GV: Not for UA if "onmouseover" specified.
AG: UA WG says UA needs to allow activation of
events through other means.
RESOLVED: New checkpoint in guideline 8:
For scripts and applets,
until user agents provide device-independent
means to activate event handlers,
ensure that those event handlers are keyboard
operable. P2
/* Try to get 8.2 and this one together */
12) Issue 51.
Raise priority of style sheets to 1?
GV: Can pages be accessible if you don't use style sheets?
Yes.
RESOLVED: No change, based on dfn of priorities.
13) Issue 52.
Note on use of decorative color.
RESOLVED: Drop the note.
14) Issue 53.
Checkpoint 12.5 (avoid word wrap) and proper use of table markup
GV: This needs to be done for all tables.
AG: I think the "Until clause" responds to Tim's clause.
RESOLVED:
a) Add: this should discourage the use of tables
to represent tabular information.
15) Issue 54.
Braille devices with mice
JW: Braille devices have sensors above cells. You
can activate them. It's configurable.
RESOLVED: Remove parenthetical mention.
16) Issue 55.
5.7: Priority of relative units
CMN: I don't think priority 1. Doesn't destroy
accessibility.
JW: You can turn off style sheets.
GV: Let's not talk about style sheets but attributes
instead.
RESOLUTION: Add reference to Techniques document
validation.
17) Issue 56.
RESOLVED: See 49.
18) Conformance
See Judy's proposal.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JanMar/0504.html
CL: There will be an indirection in the case of the Canadian
govt. They will refer to their policy from a site and
in their policy refer to this document. You won't get
a link on Canadian pages conforming to W3C.
JB: Will this work for ITAC?
GV: Yes. However, if they change or add requirements,
it's not the same as the guidelines.
AG, IJ, and JW feel that should be stated explicitly an not in
an example. Say explicitly to leave no room for misinterpretation.
Action Ian:
a) Editorial change to wording: THIS guidelines document's ...
b) List uris, titles, etc. explicitly for 1 and 2.
As example for icons - have html to paste in.
c) Avoid redundant language
RESOLVED: Call the guidelines "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
1.0"
RESOLVED: Don't put a version number on the techniques document.
UNRESOLVED: Whether the techniques document will be a Note.
19) Issues from Eric that haven't been addressed:
a) EH: List groups of people affected by impact.
I think it's hard to understand priority ratings
without this information. (Who and why someone
can't access info).
JB: I wouldn't support putting this info in as I wouldn't
put demographic info in a document since it
might dissuade developers. Also, barriers
change with technology.
GV: Can we add this to techniques?
JW: Add this to central NOTE on disability profiles.
JB: Don't think we need to discuss it there either.
UNRESOLVED: Where to put this.
20) Issue 41.
/* Greg reads proposal */
JW: If a person can't see the video or hear the audio,
they need the text. Text is an absolute requirement.
Auditory is less important if text is synchronized.
GV: If text is presented in parallel, how is it presented?
JW: Synthesized speech or braille.
EH: The guidelines provide at a priority 1 level some
underlying text for all important content. For non-text
representations, only required in two checkpoints
currently (8.5 and 16.2).
DD: I don't think we should do this. Too late.
GV: I have similar comments. I like a lot of the elements
in the proposal. The proposal elevates the concept
of equivalent. However, there are some issues:
a) Some of the things that get moved out don't seem
to belong in other sections.
i) Buttons v. image maps:
IJ: Buttons should be used instead of image maps
as buttons.
ii) Client site map v. Server side.
IJ: Server-side implies a click.
DD: Server-side functionality is a bug.
iii) Leave ascii art in guideline one. Image replacement
is a technique.
Proposed Guideline:
Provide equivalent information for
visual and auditory information.
GV: Doesn't speak to me.
IJ: Ensure that content makes sense without
video or audio components.
DD: Add frameset to non-text object.
EH: These guidelines are committed to having
an underlying text representation since it
can be readily rendered graphically, as speech,
and as braille.
Question of priority on
"For movies, provide auditory descriptions that are synchronized
with the
original audio."
EH: I'm happy to make this Pri 1. But 3.4 needs to be Pri 1
due to deaf-blind.
JW: For 3.4, "until user agents"...?
GV: Tools not readily available.
CMN: G2 happily handles text.
GV: Self-voicing resources cause problems for some
screen-readers.
JB: Raising priorities are probably more controversial
than lowering.
GV: Controversy from both sides.
GV: As much as having Pri 1 for text description adds,
it's complicated to produce.
JW: This has nothing to do with the priority definition.
It's a priority one by definition.
EH: Only way to keep it priority 2 is to define reference
groups to exclude deaf-blind.
RESOLVED in any case: Text description of audio descriptions
is Priority 1.
Editorial change to Guideline text:
Provide equivalent information for visual and auditory
JW: If possible to structure the first three guidelines,
I'd like to see it down now rather than later.
Possible to leave 16.2 where it is.
Comments about individual checkpoints:
1.1: Broad but verifiable. All priorities already 1 today.
GV: Ensure that "alt", "longdesc", etc. appear in
examples. Don't say non-text "object" -
say "for any non-text elements".
EH: Equivalent information, when
presented to the user, provides essentially the same
function or purpose as some other information.
Editorial comment: perhaps avoid "primary".
(Numbers here are checkpoint numbers are proposed
in 22 March minutes.)
1.2: Ok.
1.3: New checkpoint proposed.
Change "simultaneously" to "synchronously".
GV: Ensure that multiple audio tracks played
synchronously must remain comprehensible.
RESOLVED: Drop this one. People are not
likely to do this one.
1.4: Synchronize equivalents that evolve together over time.
GV: Don't understand.
AG: Provide information to synchronize
streams of information that
are intended to be played together.
AG: The equivalents of timed information must
be timed.
GV: All equivalent forms of time-based events or
information should be presentable in
synchronous fashion.
RESOLVED: Change wording to:
Synchronize equivalent forms of time-based
information or events with the primary
presentation of that information.
1.5: Provide non-text equivalents where they
facilitate comprehension of the page.
RESOLVED:
a) Leave 16.2 where it is with cross-ref.
GV: Provide visual or auditory equivalents
to text where they facilitate comprehension
of the page. (Cross reference guideline 1).
GV: Ensure that this doesn't mean to remove text.
Add examples from 1.5 in 22 march minutes.
b) Merge 8.5 and new 8.2. Make 8.5 more of a technique.
c) 2.2 becomes 1.5.
d) See EH's proposed definitions.
EDITORIAL: Don't use "equivalent" on its own. It's a role.
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 20:19:53 UTC