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

Minutes from 29 June 2000 telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:16:37 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000629171440.00acadc0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
29 June 2000 WCAG Telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions
Action MM send TN PDF info, merge and publish joint writing to the list.
Action GR: write proposal for accesskey for HTML Techniques module.
Action MJ: investigate MK's question. How do the large portals provide info 
for the different devices. How many diff. types of content do you need to 
provide. What methods are used to provide the alternative content.
Resolved: adopt Wendy's proposal for the Requirements document from 26 June 
to group issues that minimum requirements must apply to.
Action WC Will do a comparison between guidelines for WAP, IMode and WCAG 
before head to Japan.

Participants
Gregory Rosmaita
Jason White
Dick Brown
Wendy Chisholm
William Loughborough
Marshall Jansen
Marja-Ritta Koivunen
Marti McCuller
Katie Hareitbos-Shea

Regrets
Cynthia Shelley
Gregg Vanderheiden

Agenda
Revised draft of the Techniques document.
Draft of combined guidelines and technology-specific checklists.
Identification of requirements which are common to WCAG and to broader 
conceptions of device independence.
Requirements document: identification and classification of technologies to 
be addressed in the working group's deliverables (issue raised by Wendy).
Any other items that you wish to add to the agenda--please send a message 
to the list regarding any other issues that you would like to discuss at 
the meeting.

Action items
JW any one having difficulties with?
WC progress on CSS Tech module, basic overhaul of CSS Tech module, 
incorporating info from CSS Access note, incorporating resolutions from calls.
GR I have a regress report since I have been off-line since last Tuesday.
MMi - sent something to Wendy. Not sure how to proceed.
WC Send it to the list.
Action MM send TN PDF info, merge and publish joint writing to the list.
WL's bidrectional handed off to DD.
DB asked UA, copied on that list.
JW IJ responded. sounds sufficient enough to incorporate into Techniques.

Techniques document
JW When release another public?
WC Would like to finish overhaul of CSS and add JavaScript stuff.
GR Would like to add XHTML stuff into HTML.
CMN Like to publish ASAP.
WC Can finish edits in the next couple of days, by next week's meeting we 
could decide to take public. Only open issues are "accesskey" and 
bidirectional tables.
JW discuss accesskey?
WC GR you are closest to this. what do you consider open?
GR Encourage authors to provide a list. Outline in post to AU group, 
several test pages.
WC several users gone through?
GR IE only one that supports accesskey. problems with key bindings. 
sometimes intercepted by User Agent. It should be up to the user. Alan 
Cantor discussed limiting accesskeys numeric keys, but then only a limited set.
JW it's in the spec that it can be a unicode character with link or form 
control.
CMN a fundamental problem with accesskey.
JW the name is a real problem with it, it should be "character" that you 
can associate a mneumonic with it. Need to ensure that the user can enter 
the character. Many of these are UA issues.
GR We need to cross-check that.
CMN There are mobile implementations of accesskey, such as IMode (although 
it's not W3C compliant) uses accesskey. It only accepts 0-9. The rest it 
ignores. IE ignores random sequences of accesskeys.
JW Perhaps a warning statement that older browsers only take 0-9. Basic 
technique is to use a mnemonic key from the document.
CMN Problem originates with the HTML spec.
JW Propose that numeric characters are clearly available for legacy user 
agents, the user should choose a character from character set of the document.
GR Also need to cover the case where accesskey is defined for every 
character including numerics.
Action GR: write proposal for accesskey for HTML Techniques module.
GR Handle links and form controls separately or together?
JW Is there difference between them?
GR In IE4 it didn't support it on anchor, but on IE5 it does.
CMN worth pointing out that certain implementations ignore certain characters.
JW Yes, that should be noted.
WC Be sure to look at html compendium for that info, perhaps. /* Wendy 
notes that the compendium does not seem to have 4.0 attribute listed... */

Device independence
JW Items common to a broader sense of guidelines: mobile, 
internationalization. There is little which is unique to accessibility that 
is common in the general approach. Our guidelines should be in harmony with 
the general concerns. We need to identify how our guidelines fit into the 
broader W3C work that is relevant and whether there are specific issues 
that should be highlighted.
WL Exclusion has to be highlighted. If they aren't paying attention to it, 
alarms should be raised. If someone adopts a set of guidelines to make 
something easier to use that ignore this, they are incomplete.
WC Heading to Japan, what should I ask? look for?
WL Should take info, we know a lot about this.
GR Mobile content development in Japan is based on authoring tools, support 
for objects. All for one. Deliver it in a variety of modalities.
WL If an org to provide usable output for cellphones, and they are outside 
mainstream of what we're talking about, you don't need a group...
WC metaphor, we have to learn from each other. author has to provide breaks 
in structure, define the cards.
JW Interested to know about inconsistency between WCAG and any 
mobile-related guidelines. Also, any areas where greater harmonization can 
occur.
Action WC Will do a comparison between guidelines for WAP, IMode and WCAG 
before head to Japan.
JW Then we can look at the relationships betweeen them.
MK Looking at different services as well? Like what is happening at the 
portals. What content do they have to store? They can't provide the same 
content for the little screens vs. the big screens. How do they do that?
WC What about people on the call? Marshall?
MJ - don't have much experience, but can do research.
WC What aspect interested in researching?
Action MJ: investigate MK's question. How do the large portals provide info 
for the different devices. How many diff. types of content do you need to 
provide. What methods are used to provide the alternative content.
MK e.g., NetMorph.
JW interesting info for ER.

Requirements document
GR an alternate view. Concentrate on the technologies first.
JW Same requirement in substance, doesn't matter how it is expressed. Give 
us greater room to move in.
Resolved: adopt Wendy's proposal for the Requirements document from 26 June 
to group issues that minimum requirements must apply to.

Next meeting
Same time next week.
Resolved: Main topic on the agenda for next week's meeting is publishing 
the Techniques doc as a public working draft.

$Date: 2000/06/29 21:12:16 $ Wendy Chisholm

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2000 17:14:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT