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

Minutes from 23 June teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:50:12 -0400
Message-ID: <37711E54.BF748864@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
 Mark Novak
 Harvey Bingham
 Glen Gordon
 Marja Koivunen
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Rich Schwardtfeger

Agenda:
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0224.html

Summary of Outstanding Items:

 Action CMN: Send URI on default keyboard bindings to list. Ian
                  will then include in Techniques document.
 Action CMN: Send request to blinux users for info about orientation.

 Action IJ: Send similar request to IG.

 Action GG: Send ideas on dependent tool point of regard to list.

 Action Editors:
      a) Add checkpoint about turning on/off author-supplied
         keyboard configs

Review of Action Items:
----------------------

- IJ: Write DJW about requirements T&S/WAI. 

      IJ: I called. He told me to talk to Thierry Michel, Team contact
for
          micropayments at W3C.

- IJ: Propose a keyboard implementation model for the guidelines and
      techniques document to highlight the importance of keyboard
support in user
      agents

  Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0208.html

- IJ: Propose a guideline on consistency of user interface features
(notably
      keyboard) between versions of a user agent

  Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0236.html


- IJ: Rewrite and propose checkpoints in guidelines 7 based on 16 June 
      discussion.

  Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0207.html

  IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to simulate event activator that an
      element could respond to

  IJ: Include checkpoint: Orient user to events an element can respond
to

      JG: How does the user know what events the element can respond to?
      GG: What's a meaningful action? Color changes aren't useful.
      JG: Allow users to configure (e.g., only allow certain types
          of events, or explicit association.)

  IJ: Include checkpoint:: Add checkpoint: turn on/off access key at
priority
      2 level

    RS: Potential problems with access keys - interference with 
        sticky keys. (e.g., Alt-F). The idea is to turn off
        author-supplied accesskeys. 
    IJ: Put under user-control of styles?
    HB: List some default conventions for keyboard bindings in
techniques document. 
    RS: Some are cross-platform.

  Action Charles: Send URI on default keyboard bindings to list.
  Action Ian: Include in techniques document.

  CMN: Write techniques for 7.2.2 and 7.2.6 CMN (Navigaton of the
document
       tree) deferred until publication of Note by Rich and Mark.
Status: Will
       wait for new draft (expanded to include additional checkpoints in
guideline
       7 of 11 June WD).
 
       Status Done.

JG: Techniques for 7.2.2. Status: In progress.

-------------------
Guideline 8: Orientation

 IJ: A lot of these seem to be techniques to me. What should
     be checkpoints?

 GG: I can see that it's useful to know that 
     you've visited the same target. Not from a particular element.

     Propose changing 8.16 to talk about target, not anchor.

 IJ: Some ideas:
  a) Small list of really important ones?
  b) Abstract topics to subsume some of the big list?

 GG: Include paragraphs describing scenarios, how the user
     really navigates.

 MK: I agree.

 JG: "Make information available about different elements."

 IJ: How do you verify this?

 JG: This list is long and there are a lot of Priority 3 checkpoints.
     Does this convey what we want? How do we help designers 
     understand the problems?

 RS: Techniques currently empty on this topic right now.

 IJ: Maybe nothing is critical, just helpful. Put the non-obvious ones
     in the Techniques document.

 GG: In my opinion, there's some stuff that you absolutely need: 
      - Focus
      - Labels associated with controls (or nearby labels).

     Everything else you can fumble through.


 IJ: It sounds like the element-specific stuff is really less
     important.

 RS: Can you describe this in terms of contextual information (where
     your point of regard is)?

 RS: 8.4 could be technique.

 IJ: Where do we gather information about what users find important?

 MK: We can get this info, but then need
     to abstract it.

 CMN: We want to know whether these checkpoints are the right ones?

 JG: Use the IG to get this information.

 RS: This stuff is more "technique for the trade" than documented
     feature.

 GG: I don't have too many people to look for for good "stories".

 RS: - Provide a visual mechanism for identifying where the user
       is operating. 
 
 IJ: I propose: 
     a) Have a small laundry list.
     b) Get information from someone who has done usability
        studies for a variety of scenarios.

 MK: Studies might not exist, but send to users.
  
 CMN: Go to Blinux users list.
 
 JG: Warning, this may be "expert" users only.

 Action CMN: Send request for info about orientation and for the users
             to suggest ideas.

 Action IJ: Send similar request to IG.
  JG: Send to David Poehlman as well.

 GG: Make distinction between dependent and independent tools:
  a) Independent tool must make info available.
  b) Dependent tool maintains point of regard (e.g., inside the focus).

 Action GG: Explain the dependent tool point of regard idea to the
            list.

 HB: I think the list of checkpoints is more useful as a laundry list
     than as more abstract points.

 JG: So sounds like consensus that we want this type of list, but
     want to make sure we have the right list.

 
-------------------
Guideline 10: W3C technologies.

 Consensus: 10.1 and 10.2 are good.

-------------------
Guideline 11: System conventions.

 Re: 11.1.

 RS: Should a given player use a particular interface?

 GG: If you use standard windows controls you get this 
     automatically.

 JG: We'll provide links to accessibility guidelines from Techniques.

 CMN: Send list of references to UA list.

 /* About testing desktop UAs and dependent UAs */
 
 /* Should there be a checkpoint for testing? */

 IJ: What does it mean to say that a piece of software works with
     another?

 IJ Proposes: Do like in WCAG 1.0: Appendix on "validation". Important
    enough to be in guidelines, but not list of checkpoints.

 Action items deferred until next week. 
 Refer to Charles email about conventions:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0246.html

 CMN: Proposes that 11.1/2/3 apply to all classes of user agent.

 Resolved: Apply to all user agents.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 13:49:11 GMT

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