W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Fwd: minutes, some before lunch, some this afternoon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:30:33 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

>X-Sender: jomiller@bendingline.com
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:33:48 -0700
>To: wendy@w3.org
>From: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>
>Subject: minutes
>Some from before lunch, rest from this afternoon.
>*** Topic for #wai: irc.w3.org:6665 channel is #wai
>#wai :Jo mcmay oedipus TimLa KatieHS wendy chaals
>     mcmay: All the users that are trying to be good citizens need 
> somewhere to start. This has been the only global conversation to allow 
> that to happen.
>     mcmay: Focus on legislation is helpful, but smaller-level adoptions 
> are helpful as well. We don't want to isolate them.
>     mcmay: KHS Unicode support for ATIA.
>     mcmay: CMN to Greg: Issue of fixing content vs. fixing technologies.
>     mcmay: If a section is hard to do, should it be in the guidelines? My 
> answer is that the kind of document we can publish is a technical 
> recommendation.
>     mcmay: We should say this is what needs to be done to make things 
> accessible.
>*** oeddie (~oedipus@ns.hicom.net) joined #wai
>     mcmay: Social decisions are outside our scope.
>     mcmay: GV Guidelines should include everything, no matter how hard it 
> is to do?
>     mcmay: CMN Yes.
>     mcmay: WC ref: http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/wcag20-requirements
>    oeddie: lost carrier, but irc still thinks that oedipus is here, so 
> i'm here as 'oeddie'
>     mcmay: GV This came as a set of agreed-upon principles.
>     mcmay: CM Our requirement is that we want our document to do 
> everything. Maybe we're biting off more than we can chew.
>*** oedipus has signed off (EOF From client)
>     mcmay: ...we're going to dilute the power of the document. This is a 
> tug of war between regulatory groups and end-user authors.
>     mcmay: Bob: Agree. Put in the hard stuff, make it standard. Then 
> Macromedia, for example, can use it to press the standard.
>              chaals notes that my Mum does accessibility at the 
> university of Melbourne...
>     mcmay: JM It's not just poor grandma, but making meaningful art. 
> We're saying you have to hire someone to do everything necessary.
>     wendy: MM Needs to be something that will be easy to modify.
>      Jo: MM not everything needs to be normative or be in a single grand 
> document. It gets down to a level of fine, fluid detail, so some things 
> need to be in a document that can be easily modified.
>     wendy: MM must be fluid.
>     wendy: CMN Is there consensus that we should set out all (as many as 
> possible) the requirements for accessibility?
>     wendy: CMN We've discussed writing something that will be taken up by 
> legislation, or whether writing something, "this is what you'll do in a 
> perfect world."
>     wendy: ..legislation, not likely in a perfect world, therefore you'll 
> have to interpret it.
>     wendy: CS Very concerned about things that have found their way into 
> the guidelines,
>     wendy: like creating art, writing well...most of G3
>     wendy: ..want to see something that is measurable and practical.
>     wendy: ..easier to translate into code.
>     wendy: CMN believe you'd have universal consensus on that.
>     wendy: CS Issues w/WCAG 1 that are difficult to do, many people 
> discount entier thing (based on one).
>     wendy: LGR Believe this is strongly related to conformance. Could 
> structure to make it reasonable.
>     wendy: ...also to address CS's issues.
>     wendy: CS A list of everything one could do, would be interesting, 
> but not appropriate for this.
>     wendy: GV We seem to consensus on what we're trying to achieve.
>     wendy: ..they should be usable in some way by people who write 
> regulations.
>     wendy: ..they should have a harmonizing effect on people writing 
> regulations.
>     wendy: ..different words, different countries, things done 
> differently, but the effect on companies
>     wendy: .. is similar.
>     wendy: ..i don't beleive we have consensus on whether we should put 
> everything in, including all the hard stuff, or jsut put
>     wendy: ..what is practical.
>     wendy: ..hard and practical, but not hard and inpractical.
>*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer)
>*** TimLa has signed off (Connection reset by peer)
>     wendy: ..we have a continuum.
>     wendy: ..things to require, but not sure how.
>*** TimLa (~timlaranc@ joined #wai
>     wendy: ..Another dimension - measurability.  we know we can do it, 
> but don't have a ruler to measure.
>     wendy: ... people ought to write things simply if they can, but we 
> don't know how to do that.
>     wendy: RN 2 yrs ago, i was adam ant.
>     wendy: .. wanted to keep them simple.
>     wendy: .. now, my thoughts have changed.
>     wendy: .. put them out there, w/everything in there.
>     wendy: .. let the countries and companies incorporate what they want.
>     wendy: JM the sum up is accurate.
>     wendy:  (she's talking as loud as she can....)
>     wendy: ..it's already in the draft requirements.
>     wendy: KHS propose, along with QA, shouldn't require anything we 
> can't show good techniques for.
>    oeddie: we have good techniques, they just aren't supported by the 
> extant technology
>    oeddie: what "mainstream" ua supports CSS2 in toto? these are the 
> problems - 508 is just a handy stick with which to beat people over the head
>     wendy: CMN we argue about philosphy way too much.
>     wendy: BR 508 effects what's going on at Macromedia.
>    oeddie: in order to get accessibility "out of the box" we first need 
> to get it into the box, via canonical specs
>     wendy: GV To get a hybrid, we ought to think about:
>     wendy: .. do kind of what we do in 1.0.  Includes all the info about 
> what would make things accessible.
>     wendy: .. then hi-lite what is critical in a short list.
>     wendy: .. perhaps short list is (previously P1-3). was 
> impossible/hard/helps, but somethings put down a level other than pure 
> definition.
>     wendy: .. sometimes you can do it, sometimes you can't.
>     wendy: .. might have a doc that could be used by others to figure out 
> what is essential and also
>     wendy: .. provide full range of things to move towards.
>     wendy: .. as tech changes they won't disappear.
>     wendy: .. one reason govnt did not include cognitive in 508 was that 
> they did not feel there was any way to measure.
>     wendy: .. part of this could be handled by structure.
>     wendy: .. objective, and others to address , but no criteria for success.
>    oeddie: accessibility isn't quantitative - it is qualitative (quality 
> + ative)
>     wendy: .."do what you can..."
>      Jo: gv - Perhaps aim for a document that includes all the 
> information about what makes things accessible, and highlight things that 
> should be critical in anyone's shortlist. We aimed for this in 1.0 with 
> priority 1,2,3. if we could figure out how to do that, then we'd have a 
> document that can be used by others (regulators, etc.) and can also 
> provide the full range of things that we ought to be shooting for. So 
> that as technologies change, it's still on the table. So we don't have to 
> throw ou
>      Jo: gv - don't have to throw out the things that we don't have the 
> technology, techniques to address.
>*** Welcome to the Internet Relay Network Jo!~Jo@
>*** Your host is irc.w3.org, running version 2.10.2
>*** This server was created Thu Jul 8 1999 at 16:35:44 EDT
>*** There are 37 users and 0 services on 2 servers
>*** There are 1 operators online
>*** There are 1 unknown connections
>*** There are 30 channels formed
>*** I have 4 clients, 0 services and 1 servers
>*** Topic for #wai: irc.w3.org:6665 channel is #wai
>#wai :Jo TimLa oedipus chaals
>*** mcmay (~Matt@ joined #wai
>      Jo: Microsoft Project Central Demo
>*** AaronSw (~AaronSw@c930384-a.hlndpk1.il.home.com) joined #wai
>*** TimLa has signed off ()
>*** TimLa (~timlaranc@ joined #wai
>      Jo: GV why is the assignment database not part of the project store?
>      Jo: typically the manager wants to be in control over what's in 
> project store. Assignment area is temp database until things get approved 
> by mgr to go into project store.
>      Jo: Is Exchange required?
>      Jo: Not any more. Web-based.
>      Jo: (above question was from RN)
>      Jo: WC On screen shots, which are ActiveX controls?
>      Jo: (shows) The benefits of the ActiveX controls: much faster 
> performance.
>      Jo: WC What are you trying in moving from ActiveX to HTML/DHTML?
>      Jo: (inaudible)..trying to leverage other work being done within 
> microsoft.
>      Jo: CMN the activeX controls are standardized?
>*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer)
>      Jo: There are 5 or 6, not from a library of standard controls.
>      Jo: CMN Are you using one standard Rich Text entry thing?
>      Jo: Mostly standard to other MS products.
>*** TimLa has signed off (Ping timeout)
>*** TimLa (~timlaranc@ joined #wai
>*** cyns (~cyns@ joined #wai
>*** mcmay (~Matt@ joined #wai
>--> *chaals* I can't hear a bloody thing over the fan, can you?
>      Jo: WC Any recommendations or thoughts on dealing with older browsers?
>      Jo: RN to WC we don't worry about IE 3.
>      Jo: MS Project still viewed as a niche product, it's hard to get AT 
> vendors to support it (as opposed to Office and other products with 
> larger user base).
>*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer)
>      Jo: LGR Access keys?
>      Jo: LGR Using standard access keys?
>      Jo: Pretty similar.
>      Jo: GV trouble with collision with hotkeys in IE?
>      Jo: Yes.
>      Jo: Try to put access keys around the page rather than in one location.
>      Jo: Try to group the controls logically and provide access keys for 
> each section to make tabbing easier.
>      Jo: CMN notes problems with collision with access keys
>      Jo: GV Problem with visual representation of access keys. One thing 
> to think about is to expose access keys to screen readers.
>      Jo: GV With AT, maybe we have to say this assumes that you have a 
> reader that works with current technologies and that will display these 
> in standard way.
>      Jo: GV "We assume the AT has the following capabilities..."
>      Jo: TL Access Keys are also exposed in document object model. Up to 
> AT vendors to decide how they're going to display that.
>      Jo: WC What would you consider the applications?
>      Jo: Device independence. Not table layout. Working on that in future 
> versions.
>      Jo: WC ActiveX controls?
>      Jo: GV Nested headers?
>      Jo: No, not on single page.
>      Jo: WC Any other things to warn us about as we move forward?
>      Jo: Standard for access keys. repetitive navigation. ability to skip 
> long lists of links when tabbing.
>      Jo: CMN Browser manufacturers pushed back on access keys.
>      Jo: CMN smart browsers re-map access keys.
>   oedipus: smart browsers offer the user the option to pick a triggering 
> mechanism for accesskey
>   oedipus: they also allow users to chose between establishing focus on 
> the element or activating it, which needs to be a UA configuration option
>      Jo: GV Have you thought of having alt key combinations?
>      Jo: CMN Have you been looking at web authoring guidelines?
>      Jo: No, maybe good idea.
>      Jo: Note: very hard to hear back here...minutes incomplete and 
> possibly inaccurate. Sorry.
>   oedipus: jo, something is better than nothing
>    chaals: do you want us to dial you in?
>      Jo: Demo over. Back to Guidelines.
>      Jo: GV proposes we make a list defining what we agree on vs. what we 
> don't agree on.
>*chaals* Nope
>      Jo: GV refers to e-mail message he wrote this morning, on consensus.
>      Jo: GV That our guidelines should be usable by people who are 
> writing regulations or requirements or policies. This is not the only 
> group, but one group we need to address. Seems to be consensus on that.
>      Jo: GV That our guidelines should not necessarily be directly usable 
> or adoptable as regs.
>      Jo: That our guidelines should not be limited to only that 
> information that could or should be required today. They should talk as 
> well about what would make web content more accessible even if it is not 
> possible today.
>*** wendy (~wendy@tux.w3.org) joined #wai
>Jo Miller
>B e n d i n g   L i n e
>7 0 3 - 7 8 3 - 0 6 9 5
>Strategic Web Consulting

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 18:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC