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

MINUTES: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 28 July 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:36:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199907281831.NAA09638@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Also available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/07/wai-ua-telecon-19990728.html

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Cathy Laws
Gregory Rosmaita
Marja Koivunen

Regrets: Jim Allan
Glen Gordon
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile

Completed Action Items

IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending ( asked CMN to copy his message to IG)
HB: Ask Allan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard
conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600
combinations. open
JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or
review existing materials, then contact people (phone discussion held on 27
July 1999)
JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow
afternoon
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html

Continued Action Items

CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL
list.
HB: Ask Allan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard
conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations.
RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where
it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed.
IJ: Review member participation for next week (waiting for response from
Judy Brewer)

New Action Items

JG/IJ: Will finalize dates for next F2F by next teleconf 4 August and
announce on 5 August.
GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a
frameset context.
IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary
identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. Also, look into bidi support.
IJ: Write a proposal to combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded
something like: "Make available information about a focused link to to
enable the user to decide whether to follow the link. In particular, make
available whether the link has been visited and whether it involves a fee."
GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any
information made available to the user).

Minutes

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0050.html
Reference Document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/

REVIEW OF OPEN ACTION ITEMS

a) CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to
UAGL list.
b) IJ: Send similar request to IG. done.
IJ: CMN has agreed to forward his email to the IG list directly.
c) HB: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard
conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600
combinations. Status: Pending.
HB: It wasn't Len, it was Alan Cantor. No reply yet.
JB: Note: Alan Cantor is expected to participate in the WG starting soon.
d) IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f Status: Done.
e) RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see
where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. Status:
Pending.
CL: HPR is more like PWWebspeak - neither graphical desktop user agent nor
dependent user agent.
GR: Can HRP operate independently of netscape?
CL: No, but not dependent on the user interface, only the datastream.
f) JG and IJ: to identify who has contributed in the past, to contribute
more or review existing materials, then contact people. Status: Done.
JG: Will discuss in this conference call: Consider each technique section
in teleconf and create outline for the section. Ask people to fill out the
outline.
g) IJ: Review member participation for next week. Status: Pending.
h) JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline
tomorrow afternoon Status: Done. Refer to Agenda 2.

DISCUSSION

Agenda 1) Face to face meeting after last call.
JG: Goal is to review comments after last call working draft (late
September, early October). One idea is to schedule around ATIA meeting in
Florida. We'd like a UA developer to host the meeting. Would be strategic.
JG: Possible dates:
a) 30 Sept - 1 Oct (at a developer site)
b) 9-10 Oct (after ATIA, in Orlando)
IJ: Any known constraints?
MK: October 9-10 might be difficult.
CL: Both ok.
HB: Both ok.
IJ: Both ok.
JG: Both ok.
DP: Both ok.
GR: Both ok. Would prefer 9-10.
IJ: For 8-week minimum announcement, need to announce by 5 August.
ACTION: JG/IJ: Will finalize dates by next teleconf 4 August and announce
on 5 August.

Proposed changes to Guideline 9 on orientation 

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html
JG: Goals:
Create more general checkpoints.
Reduce the number of checkpoints.
IJ: Info lost in generalization. Not verifiable if too general. 

Discussion of Proposed Checkpoint:  Provide summary information about the
current view [Priority 1, Both].

IJ: Is it ok if "highlighting" lost? Wasn't this important for
identification by other tools?
GR: For those things that were priority 1 and have been consolidated, need
to ensure covered by general checkpoints.
RESOLVED: Combine 9.1-9.3 into one checkpoint, listing view, selection, and
focus all together.
GR: One problem with frames is that with text-to-speech technology, if you
don't know that you are in a frame, the screen reader will it as the only
view. You don't know, e.g., if you follow a link, that another view has
been updated. If you know you're in a frame, you can use the UA's (desktop
or screen reader) nav mechanism.
MK: Still need to know that the view has changed.
IJ: This is covered in a different checkpoint.
DP: If current view changes something not in current view, still need to
know this.
RESOLVED: 9.7 is covered by 9.1 - a frame is a type of view.
JG: In Techniques, show frames as examples.
MK: We want to know that a frame is a navigation bar.
DP: Script-based changes concern me more than static frames.
RESOLVED: Add to 10.1: "about document and view changes". Ensure that it's
clear that this refers to changes in any view, not just current.
RESOLVED: Add to 10.1, an example that refers to scripts that pop up
information dynamically.
ACTION: GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues
apply in a frameset context.
About checkpoint 9.9: Natural language identification.
DP: Propose checkpoint to allow users to turn on/of support for natural
language.
JG: Several cases:
Support language correctly when supported
Don't do the wrong think when not supported.
Identify language changes.
Conclusions for langauge checkpoint(s):
Some language-related checkpoint(s) are important since used in WCAG 1.0
and required for access.
Checkpoint should stand alone.
ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and
primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9.
HB: What about bidi support?
ACTION: IJ: Look into this.
(Note: 9.14 is also in third proposed checkpoint, so will be considered in
that context.)

Discussion of Proposed Checkpoint: Provide information about the attributes
of a current element.

IJ:
i. Info not always in attributes (could be dynamic, could be in elements).
ii. No accessibility issue conveyed by checkpoint.
GR: Maybe talk about "status" information instead.
GR: Proposes "Provide status information about links."
IJ: Is 9.16 of high value?
GR: I think so.
IJ: Goal is to provide user with information that allows them to decide
whether to follow a link (fee, already visited, in same document, language
of target, etc.).
GR: Yes. If you're going through a list of links, it's useful to know that
you're at link X of Y (where Y is total number of links).
ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal:
a) Combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded something like: "Make
available information about a focused link to to enable the user to decide
whether to follow the link. In particular, make available whether the link
has been visited and whether it involves a fee." Other examples: language
of target, external, etc.
b) Rationale: People browser by tabbing among links.
c) Techniques for providing this information. MK: You may not want by
spoken language always. You may want sounds to indicate that a fee is
required, etc.
GR: PROPOSED: "Allow user to configure what information about links is
presented." I may want link text or "title". (e.g., with screen readers).
ACTION: GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9
(any information made available to the user).
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, 28 July 1999 14:31:40 GMT

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