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

MINUTES: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 21 July 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:37:02 -0700
Message-Id: <199907211837.NAA14506@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan

Present: 
Ian Jacobs 
Glen Gordon
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: 
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita 

Minutes

Completed Action Items 

IJ: Micropayments issue: Status: Discussion launched with Micropayments WG. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0258.html 
done- discussed at PF f2f 
JRG: Take to CG and see what PF's role will be. message to Al Gilman that this
is a PF issue. Done, sent message to CG group
IJ: Send proposal to list to propose 9 July Draft (with today's changes) to
IG.
done, group agreed, Judy or Ian to message IG about draft 
IJ: Add checkpoint about default keyboard configs not interfering with system
conventions. (See details below). done 
IJ: Propose rationale text for guideline 1 explaining relationship between
input mechanisms and system conventions. done 
IJ: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on
"through other software". done, followup email to discuss in today's meeting,
refer to conformance by using other software, need a checkpoint 
IJ: Ensure that discussion of face-to-face on next agenda done 
JB: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with deadline for comments by email or in
next Weds' teleconf. After that, take to W3C management. no comments to list,
JG no comments, charter to management, no questions from attendees 

Continued Action Items 

CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL
list.
IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending 
HB: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are
documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. open 

New Action Items 

IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f
RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it
fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. 
JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review
existing materials, then contact people 
IJ: Review member participation for next week 
JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow
afternoon 

Discussion
RS: tech question, some items don't make sense. bullet item- how to specify in
html 
IJ: right, to be filled in later, techniques still in process 

F2F Meeting during post proposed recommendation stage 

JG: move to proposed REC in next month or two, in proposed for 6 weeks, need
f2f to discuss issues, looking at sites on west coast in early October 
GG: ATIA conference (1st week October-Orlando 6-9) and CTG Oct 18-25 
RS: out last week of Oct 14-16 and Oct 31-Nov 1 
IJ: arrange calendars, has open calendar 
JA: not available Sept 25 - Oct 3, CTG Oct 18-25 
RS: perhaps piggy back on ATIA 
JG: what about west coast 
RS: ATIA convenient for GG 
JG: never had meeting in SE USA, what about before conference 
GG: after is better 
JG: need a host group, with some funding from host group 
IJ: host coordinates, funds a dinner 
GG: talk to Wilson about this, St. Pete is far from 
JG: talk to Judy about this, perhaps 10-12 
IJ: need 8 weeks notice 
ACTION IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f 
JG: need f2f comments 
IJ: YES, more efficient, get more done 

Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on
"through other software". 

IJ: section on conformance in some revision, either conform or don't , then
changed to conform by desktop or dependent, then WCAG, then use WCAG
conformance, second clause - native implementation or interaction to other
software, no check points for interaction with other software. if we don't
talk
about it then drop clause. propose dropping because no checkpoints 
JG: communication with other software was murky, MS was not happy, if we
provide it but nobody uses it is that still conformance, don't need clause 
IJ: lots of evolution in GL, have dropped lots of language, shifted to
dependent UA 
JG: both clauses for GUI and dependent agents would be removed. 
GG: makes life easier, conform by doing it natively, the native thing will be
to support this API 
JG: conformance, one statement for AT or dependent, broke it up to Desktop UA
and AT, previous version said one conformance - if GUI with AT can meet check
point then you have conformance. Now, only do what UAGL says, with out
dependence on other software or technology 
IJ: do it through interface, 3) it needs to be done (i.e. table access) 
RS: why not require cell navigation 
JG: desktop not braille, not speech, but provide access to this information,
must make browser accessible to text to speech software, 
RS: browser is designed for the blind, need to allow other AT to connect to
your browser 
JG: yes, must allow interoperability with other software 
IJ: people may have other disabilities, may not be just blind, user may be
using other software in addition to talking browser, must support standard API
in answer to HB question-can I enter text from mouse... 
RS: special case browser for mobility, blind, 
IJ: yes, if they are stand alone, and may be used with other technology then
yes, if in a kiosk and no ability to connect other software then now. 
RS: special API like IE, help facility add helper object and access to DOM 
IJ: expect timely access to DOM, manipulate user interface controls, read and
write information about controls, selection, focus, may need to review
guideline- 
JG: what is required of desktop or AT 
IJ: GL aimed at desktop and AT, RS sited another class, if new class want to
conform must choose one of the classes, if WebSpeak claim conformance as AT
then don't have to work with or allow other AT access, if conform as a desktop
then must work with AT 
JG: want cooperation between AT, need cross disability AT cooperation and
working together 
ACTION RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see
where
it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. 
JG: questions about IJ conformance suggestion 
RESOLVED: checkpoint 1.3 review, clause removal--all ok 
IJ: if still questions, another class of browser- make a proposal if we finish
document, and make a profile of class of browser and conformance list,
intentionally choose these two classes, 

Techniques Document 

JG: RS made earlier comment, not much there, JG: to add to techniques what
strategies can we use to get people to write techniques 
IJ: techniques history...less vital than guidelines, storehouse of
information,
hard to keep it interesting, structure keeps changing, current structure seems
to work, hard to contribute in past, should be easier not, wide open to
contributions how to get them? tricky, think about it in parts, review
existing
browsers and make suggestions based on what's needed. need developer input 
RS: like structure 
IJ: in order to go to REC, Tim BL says must have solid techniques before last
call and REC, techniques is reflection on how real the guidelines are, use
techniques to strengthen the GL 
RS: id sections that need work, not clear what's needed 
IJ: like RS contribution on Java 
RS: problems with speed accessing DOM or COM, reality is different from making
statements and test case 
JG: what would help, make a list of what's needed, identify others to focus on
a section 
IJ: assigned tasks in AU group, brute force, is one approach, each person has
expertise in specific areas, as editor created a usable structure 
JG: people have contributed work 
RS: id sections, who has expertise 
ACTION JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or
review existing materials, then contact people 
JG: other ideas 
IJ: some material is mildly complete, sketch form, bullets, need to make
paragraphs 
JG: describe how something happens based on some tool with screen shots, 
IJ: looking for resources, how to XXX? 
RS: table stuff would be good for Kathy Laws (IBM) to look at 
RS: nobody from Microsoft in attendance lately, Why? 
IJ: Judy been talking, questions about MS and Netscape participation. Don't
know. 
ACTION IJ: Review member participation for next week 

Guideline 9: Help orient the user 

JG: need a laundry list of needed features and CMN: has queried disability
listservs to get important issues- what users need orientation to,
currently 25
checkpoints and need more list versus succinct list is good for conformance,
lots of things to check off at different levels succinct easier for
integration
and creativity, i.e. for navigation, give general concept or direction, then
expand in techniques. 
IJ: no feedback from blinux people, what to shorten list, but no feedback
shorten to 10 checkpoints and move other stuff to techniques. where is line
drawn for inaccessibility 
JG: schism between GL 8 and GL 9, 8 is general, 9 is specific, problem
editorially, may be confusing to end user of GL 
IJ: option, more abstract principle, or combine, or chop out what is not
needed

JG: question, discrepancy between 8 and 9, should 9 be more similar to 8 (less
checkpoints) 
GG: afraid to say yes, fear of task, lean toward brevity 
RS: move some to checkpoints 
ACTION JG and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline
tomorrow
afternoon 
RS: would make document less ominous 

Other Discussion

GG: examples in techniques, put blindfold on try to use, or have page with
1000
links and get to link 800 without a mouse 
IJ: scenario 
GG: allow nav without mouse, have page with 1000 links and get to link 800
without a mouse rhetorical to make a point 
IJ: Great! need more of this, giving rationale use scenario to illustrate,
Strong YES 
GG: developers should be able to get check point right if they have the
concept

JG: other issues 
no all around 

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 July 1999 14:37:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:14 GMT