- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:50:50 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- CC: jbrewer@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
Chair/Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present:
Harvey Bingham
Jim Allan
Glen Gordon
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Judy Brewer (for charter discussion)
Next meeting: 21 July
REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS:
CMN: Copy request send to blinux users for info about orientation
to UAGL list.
IJ: Send similar request to IG.
Status: Not done.
IJ: Micropayments issue:
Status: Discussion launched with Micropayments WG.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0258.html
Action Jon: Take to CG and see what PF's role will be.
SUMMARY OF NEW ACTION ITEMS:
Ian: Send proposal to list to propose 9 July Draft (with
today's changes) to IG.
Ian: Add checkpoint about default keyboard configs not
interfering with system conventions. (See details below).
Harvey: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS
system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference
to infamous 600 combinations.
Ian: Propose rationale text for guideline 1 explaining relationship
between input mechanisms and system conventions.
Ian: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1.
- review section on "through other software".
Ian: Ensure that discussion of face-to-face on next agena
Judy: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with
deadline for comments by email or in next Weds'
teleconf. After that, take to w3c management.
AGENDA [1], [2]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0013.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0017.html
Agenda 1) Review of changes in 12 July Draft of UAGL
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990709/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990709/changes
Jim/Harvey/Glen read changes list.
Agenda 2) Proposed: Send WD to IG.
No objections.
Action: Send proposal to list.
Agenda 3) Review of keyboard proposal from Rich [1]:
"Avoid default configurations that interfere
with system conventions."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0240.html
Resolved: Add proposed checkpoint as Priority 2.
Include an example (ctrl-alt-delete) after checkpoint
Action editor:
- Add this checkpoint
- Add info to Techniques:
(For Windows)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0000.html
- Add
fromhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0240.html
a) Navigation order
b) Tabbing information is for for Java.
c) Tab groupings
HB: This suggests that we need to link to where special key
definitions are defined.
RS: OS-specific keyboard events are generally intercepted
by the OS, not rerouted to applications.
HB: But one OS's system command is another's application command.
RS: This is all very OS-specific. More complicated on X where
you have your own window manager.
GG: MS has lists of "access keys" and "system keys".
Action Harvey: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS
system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference
to infamous 600 combinations.
Agenda 4) Proposed Note for checkpoint 1.1 on device-independent
input.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0011.html
HB: Do any OS do this?
RS: Not that I'm aware of.
GG: Windows 2000 is apparently shipping an on-screen keyboard.
RS: This would be the first OS I know of that does this.
JA: Some applications do this (HotMetal), but this is the
exception, not the rule.
IJ: Does the on-screen keyboard solve problems?
RS: Helpful for mobility-impaired. For serial keys, you wouldn't
be required to have an on-screen keyboard.
IJ: Should dependent UAs be required to do this?
RS: I think it would depend on the AT's purpose.
IJ: For me, a conformance issue - do you fail 1.1 if you
don't allow text input through the mouse?
RS: Do you make the UA provide this or the OS?
GG: The UA doesn't have to do this, but must be compatible
with third-party software that does this.
General consensus that UA shouldn't be required to provide
on-screen keyboard.
RS: On-screen keyboards are important for some groups of users.
Need to float on the screen without interfering with
applications. Should be provided by the OS (in the future).
GG: Why is this different from saying a mainstream browser
should be a screen reader?
RS: Right.
GG: Don't need to say that every browser should be self-voicing,
for example.
RS: DOM is hard-coded for mouse/keyboard input. No abstractions
for other input devices. In PF WG, we're working on expanding
this.
Proposed:
User agents must be able to respond to any type of
input generated for a standard device (e.g., mouse, keyboard)
by the operating system or another user agent.
Input device independence means "any standard input mechanism
supported by the operating system".
IJ: What's the list of the input mechanisms?
GG: Mouse and keyboard. Other input mechanisms use these.
RS: What about PDA? Use their own system conventions, so ok.
Action Ian: Propose new text for this.
Questions: OS-conventions only? "All" supported input
devices.
JA: Do this in the rationale section.
Action Ian: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1.
- review section on "through other software".
Agenda 5) Charter changes [Judy]
JB described charter renewal process.
JB described proposed changes:
a) Cosmetic (add links, some text, etc.)
b) WG charter through May 2000.
c) Deliverables:
- Guidelines (in various states)
- Techniques
- Post-Recommendation report on implementation
progress and recommendations for future work.
- Meeting minutes
d) Add comments about success criteria (deliverable
completion, implementation experience, or broad
commitment to implementation).
GG: Don't we have fewer and bigger players than WCAG?
JB: Operasoft is very small but very serious about
accessibility. Size doesn't necessarily matter - timing
of release is important. You might want to aim for
commitment to implementation.
e) Dependencies/Relations with other groups.
- WAI WGs are obvious.
- Other W3C WGs, primarily coordinated through WAI PF.
- Other W3C WGs explicitly: DOM, MathML,
SYMM, HTML, CC/PP (content negotation model),
Voice Browsers, CSS.
(Judy will highlight PF involvement)
f) Estimated Milestones
Last call: End of Aug
Proposed Rec: End October
Rec: Beginning December.
g) Communication mechanisms.
To discuss at another meeting:
- Proposed face-to-face in Sept or Oct. Need to
make this concrete soon if desired.
Action Ian: Ensure this makes it to next telecon agenda.
h) Time commitment of participants
- Active members of WG will be required to reregister as per:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#JoinGroups
(in response to the call for participation).
- IPR disclosure required. (Probably not a lot of IPR clashes
likely).
(Refer to process document:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#ipr)
JB: Are the guidelines drawing off of IPR of other guidelines?
Doesn't seem to be the case.
JB: For example, a Member might disclose a particular interface
they might have a patent on, but this wouldn't affect
the guidelines.
Conclusion: People are ok with conclusions about charter changes
discussed.
Action Judy: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with
deadline for comments by email or in next Weds'
teleconf. After that, take to w3c management.
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 1999 13:48:14 UTC