W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1999

MINUTES: UA Telecon on 21 April 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:05:59 -0500
Message-Id: <199904211909.OAA23354@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance
Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG)
Scribe: Jim Allan (JA)

Harvey Bingham (HB)
Dennis Anson (DA)
Kitch Barnicle (KB, Doctor now)
Charles McCathieNevile (CMN)
Marja Koivunen (MK)
Mark Novak (MN) 
Regrets
Ian Jacobs 
Rich Schwerdtfeger 

Chairs note: Thank you to Jim Allan for taking notes 

Completed Action Items

JG: Revise proposal on sectin 7.2 and send it to the group for continued
discussion
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0041.html 

Continued Action Items 

RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information). 

IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have
requirements on UAs. 

IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a
priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to
list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching. 

Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3. 

New Action Items 

MN: Will post message about ua implementation of ua 

CMN: 7.2.2, 7.2.6 write techniques, fix accessibility options of html what
version

JG: Techniques for 7.2.2 comment on MN previous work on this checkpoint 

JG : write checkpoint 7.2.1 techiques, contact rob (ms) about 724,5,6; contact
rich s (ibm) and peter korn (sun) to get techniques also for checkpoint
7.2.4,5,6 and Denis Anson about contributing on navigation commands

JA: look at nav stuff and propose checkpoints and techniques, by Monday
(maybe)
techniques what attributes are important to search for group to review and
assign more tasks at next meeting. 

Resolutions

Cancel May 12th meeting due to WWW 8 conference
Accept the topics in the checkpoints outlined by Jon Gundersons revised
proposal 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0041.html)for
inclusion in the next working draft and as representing the AT compatibility
issues. The checkpoints may be modified based on editing and contributions to
the techniques document. If two or more checkpoints share predominately the
same information it may be better to combine them.

Minutes

JG: new working draft by end of may move to proposed recommendation. Lots of
issues People attending www8 all but jg and mn, may Resolved: cancel May 12
meeting Action items: 
JG: revised 7.2 guidelines completed Discussion of AT compatibility 
JG: most people can live with checkpoints with some clarifications 
DA: concerns-DOM is one way to get access, checkpoint should be to get access
to content on page, technique is use the dom 
JG: strong feeling in group to use dom access in the checkpoint, similar to
saying use accessibility features in html, xml, etc. if you use dom then you
will be giving access to all content on a page. 
DA: since it is a w3 spec I can live with it 
CMN: good because it is a standard interface cross platform to the
information 
JG: number of ua have implemented dom 
MN: dom implementation is confused at the moment, complete implementation is
difficult, 4 or 5 ua that are saying they will implement dom
ACTION: MN will post message about ua implementation of ua 
JG: cmn made strong point for two way communication between ua and AT cmn: AT
being able to set the selection point or focus 
JG: we hae a checkpoint for that cmn: need to have one check point to cover
all
instances in list jg: 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 
CMN: if you have access setting then 7.2-7.5 are redundant jg: can collapse
723
and 724 but makes the techniques more complex, 723 can derive info from os but
allowing external program to change paramaters is not obvious, may be
difficult
programmatically. Leave separate, write techniques and see if thechniques are
similar then combine them. If techniques are different then leave as separate
checkpoints ? clarify 725 
JG: mouse over how does AT identify and implement the mouse over event without
the mouse. Some os may not have same level of AT support/api, if browser
doesn't use standard controls then AT cant get at the information (netscape
example) then 725 prevents this to allow AT access to nonstandard controls.
Want this section to encompass all the concepts. Kb: any ua that get check for
723 -725 
JG: IE would get check, AT can manipulate dom through activeX , ms is closest
to all, integrate accessibility api, 
MN: level of dom support in IE is further along than what w3 recommends, lots
of stuff is available to AT without need for activeaccessibility or other
apis,

JG: AT vendors have different needs, some want AA, others with dom, etc. same
is occuring with sun swing. We want to say do both. Dom is document centered
for use by scripting languages for manipulation of contents, style, etc. AA
and
swing java accibility api geared to querying ua for controls, what is
rendered,
what info is on the screen, java has extensions to object classes-more an
operating system orientation rather than document orientation. 
MN: venders have different needs. Webspeak has own controls etc, needs access
to document. Jaws needs access to both. 
JG: Checkpoint 7.2.1(use os tools and api), 
7.2.2 (use dom for access to content) use both methods for access 
CMN: need to say what should be exposed in a checkpoint 
ACTION: cmn: 7.2.2, 7.2.6 write techniques, fix accessibility options of html
what version 
JG: 7.27 timely manner 
MN: problem with timely manner definition change to p2, cant be p1 until
:timely is defined mn: some techniques for 72x are in document that Rich and I
are editing, also techniques on os 
ACTION: JG: Techniques for 7.2.2 comment on mn previous work on this 
HB: book is done, 19 items deferred, working on table thing 
JG: anyone to write technique for 721, what type of information needs to be
provided to AT and what is available on different os 
MN: trouble with techniques being similar jg: need to word smith, clean up
overlap, we need all ideas first then clean up, 
ACTION: JG : write checkpoint 7.2.1 techiques, contact rob (ms) about 724,5,6;
contact rich s (ibm) and peter korn (sun) to get techniques also for
checkpoint
7.2.4,5,6 
MN: sounds similar work I have done with rich already jg: techniques - what
can
be done, what should be done, in implementation of checkpoint, may be
different
ways to implement. Very technical section, need programmer input (mn, rich
cmn:
feels comfortable looking at this material, but not volunteering resoloved
accept 72x checkpoints with additional comments and techniques jg: ian will
integrate after May 15 mg: dependent definition? 
JG: dependent ua=Assistive Technology 
HB: html 4 accessibility has transitional stuff, should we tighten up the
checkpoints 
JG: need to add from pagl, defer until nav and AT issues done, have a strong
statement about html 4, talk about 7.1 support accessibility features of html
but doesn't specify version, techniques point to web content guidelines, need
to go through pagl to make sure uagl reference appropriately, make priorty
match, 
JG: w3 note not normative, techniques are a note not a recommendation, one
advantage of putting dom recommendation to 7.1 so as new features are added to
dom easy to change document dom is language neutral, platform independent jg"
implement dom1 in 72x, dom spec does not address exporting, separte checkpoint
to export dom, move implementation to 7.1, discuss dom in techiques
extensively. Issue: should reccomendaiton of dom interface be moved to
guideline 7.1 
DA: then we must rewrite 7.1 to not say language 
JG: maybe leave dom where it is. Leave as open issue, techniques should help
resolve. review navigation: 
JG: keyboard stuff, previous discussion of navigation/keyboard 3 classes of
nav
commands (18 ideas for nav features) 1) sequential commands between active
item
(ie: tab) 2) search function *** a) text in link or heading b) attribute (ie
text input box, class=nav) 3) dom centric mode-nav the doc tree (parent
element, next child element) 
JG: clean up and define da: problem with doc tree, is not obvious to user how
structure work jg: problem-how does programmer know what we mean, need to
describe or build algorythm to show what we want, navigate to next block level
element, no defintion of block, make algorithm base on dom hb: table cell 
JG: cell is block level element mg: tree structure problem for user jg: inline
tag becomes a node in doc tree, if you move to next sibling might split word
because of formatting with in word, issues with dom oriented checkpoints in
guidelines, need algorithms in techniques to illustrate 
KB: need to be careful how guidelines are implemented da: users navigate
sematically, headers, paragraphs, etc., give categories and define, for
programmer assistance on what to do with the tree and how to provide
information. 
HB: does break tree, cell up is different part of tree not same branch 
DA: jumping around is different than moving semantically, techniques should
give examples of sematic units to naviage by,. 
JG: need to build a list and make guidelines accordingly, need a succinct list
- Basic ways to nav nav active elements-links, form control - technique bring
up a list of all links nav all elements-chunks of info, define chunks/blocks
everything else is search (see above ***), find next item that is similar to X
(16pt arial, bold-rather than heading) whats checkpoints to represent these,
then write techniques/algorithms to represent them da: talking about searching
vs browsing, search is specific, browse you don't know what you are looking
for. 
HB: there is something Ja: browsing is different using keyboard vs mouse 
MK: users don't think about structure 
HB: vi users have problems with structure 
DA: exits jg will send proposed action item. 
JG: sequential access Search access Text content (search headers for specific
content) Attribute of element (ie: Techniques to illustrate Does this provide
functionality Mn: agree with broad seach categories Jg: guidelines for each
specific type Mg: sequential movement, customized search Jg: need to define
specifiy search criteria in checkpoints Kb: techniques - search box with
checks
for what elements you want to search 
JG: what is best way to implement this 
KB: 3 differnet search commands, one for headers, one for links, 
JG: other high frequency things, likes list of links, then start typing it
moves you to link beginning with letters, techniques could reflect these ideas
Cmn: what is best way to say it, strong feeling about having access to all of
it. 
JG: cmn using dom to aid navigation, using algorithms to specify what we want.
Make action items to distill some of this down Take list of nav issues,
distill
list of checkpoints for nav functionality 
ACTION: JA look at nav stuff and propose checkpoints and techniques, by Monday
(maybe) techniques what attributes are important to search for group to review
and assign more tasks at next meeting. 
HB: xsl has axis for navigation, attributes important in xml 
JG: attributes that are important, label, name, Focus on todays technology,
then address future technology, be as specific as possible to direct
programmers, Discuss nav items on the list. 
MG: good to have data on what users want. Or what is needed 
JG: england has studies on web access in the works, microsoft has a list of
grantees, the UK group looking at vi access to the web is on the list. We are
weak on data about usability. 

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:    http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
        http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess 
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 15:09:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:57 GMT