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

MINUTES: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 4 August 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 13:47:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199908041842.NAA06859@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance
Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Mark Novak 
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle 
David Poehlman 
Judy Brewer 
Richard Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:
Jim Allan
Glen Gordon
Alan Cantor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Completed Action Items 

CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL
list.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0071.html 
HB: Ask Alan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions
are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600
combinations.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0058.
html 

Continued Action Items 

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) 
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). 

New Action Items 

JG: Contact RS about conformance proposal 
JB:Follow up with W3C meeting planner and Microsoft for 11-12 October.
Backup plan for Florida after ATIA (Sun 10-11). 
IJ: Send proposed text for resolved checkpoints for orientation to the list. 
DP: Send reference to the mousetrap to the list. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Minutes
Agenda [1] 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0072.html 

Summary of New Action Items
DP: Send reference to the mousetrap to the list. 

ACTION JB:Follow up with W3C meeting planner and Microsoft for 11-12
October. Backup plan for Florida after ATIA (Sun 10-11). 

ACTION IJ: Send proposed text for resolved checkpoints (see below) to list. 

Review of Old Action Items
CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL
list. 
Status Done. 
View http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0071.html 

HB: Ask Alan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions
are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. 

HB: Contacted him, but he hasn't sent reference. 

DP: AC pointed us to info on the list. 

ACTION DP: Send reference to the mousetrap to the list. 

RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where
it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. 
Status: No proposal sent. 

IJ: Review member participation for next week. 
Status: Still waiting for comments from Judy Brewer. 

JG/IJ: Will finalize dates for next F2F by next teleconf 4 August and
announce on 5 August. 
Status: Still waiting for info from Judy Brewer. 

GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a
frameset context. 
Status DP: Pending. Mostly info about providing context information outside
the document. 

IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary
identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. Also, look into bidi support. 
Status: Not done. 

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." 
Status: Not done. 

GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any
information made available to the user). 
Status: Pending. 

AGENDA
1. F2F Meeting for late September or Early October 

/* Ian reviews Process of going to Recommendation and anticipated timeline */ 

Anticipated last call: mid/late August 

Anticipated Proposed Rec (AC review): mid October 

Anticipated Recommendation: early December 

JB: Please note that the AC review is not vote-counting. Review comments
are processed by Chair, editors, WAI, W3C Team, and Director. AC comments
usually result in minor changes. If major changes required, doc usually
recycled as a WD. 

HB: My concern is that some companies will say "If we have to do this, you
will put us out of business." 

JB: These are Recommendations. Yes, distinguishing "guideline" from
"technical standard" is important. We have chosen wording carefully. 

IJ: We need to start to focus on techniques as a strong support for the
guidelines. 

JB: I second and think that the doc shouldn't go to last call until this is
done. 

/* On Face-to-face meeting schedule */ 

JB: Optimal if face-to-face after last call and before proposed
recommendation. Initially we wanted to have the meeting held at a developer
site. We talked to Microsoft about hosting a meeting. No definite response
yet. Dates we asked them to consider were 30 Sep/1 Oct at Microsoft. (Not
interesting in hosting an offsite meeting). I know there is also discussion
of a meeting around ATIA. In terms of timing, if the WG slips schedule on
last call, the 30 sep/1 oct meeting might be too early anyway. 

HB: Earlier meeting at MS ok with me. 

MN: I have a conflict with 1 Oct. Would like to attend, yes. 

KB: Don't know whether I would attend. 

DP: Dates are ok with me. 

IJ: Dates are ok with me. 

GR: 30/1 no problem. I'd like to piggyback ATIA. 

JB: Note that it's important that a core group my have to make hard
decisions during last call/PR. Thus, a face-to-face would probably be more
of a core (active) group meeting not a general call for participants. Need
to set expectations about who would attend. 

JB: Ensure that assitive technology developers review during last call
(send messages getting review commitment in advance!). When you go to last
call, send reminder message, then follow-up during last call to ensure they
have responded. 

/* Rich joins */ 

Also discussion of piggy-backing with Closing the Gap (21-23 Oct). 

IJ: Problem of communications during the last week of the year - Comm Team
will not take a document to Recommendation during the holidays. Thus, if we
slip, we slip until January. 

JB: There's a lot of tight internal scheduling that needs to be done and
that would be difficult during the holidays. 

JB: Do you need more time? 

IJ: I think the guidelines are almost stable. I think the techniques
document needs work before going to last call. 

JB: While the Techniques don't go to last call, without them too many
questions. 

RS: A lot needs to be done in the Techniques Document. The Guidelines look
good. 

JB: Lots of key members on vacation this month as well. 

JG: I'd like to get a developer to host a meeting. 

GR: Yes, for AUGL that gave the WG a boost when we met at Lotus. 

JG: Who's going to ATIA (in Orlando)? 

JB: Me. 

RS: I would go if UAGL had a meeting. 

JB: Is 11-12 October in Redmond a possibility? 

JG: OK. 

IJ: OK 

RS: Ok, although I'd prefer in Florida 

HB: Ok. 

MN: Either ATIA or Redmond 

GR: Either 

DP: Redmond better 

KB: Dates fine, but not sure if I can go. 

ACTION JB: Follow up with W3C meeting planner and Microsoft for 11-12
October. Backup plan for Florida after ATIA (Sun 10-11). 

JB: If people want to talk to me about WAI resources for attending
meetings, please contact Judy 

/* Judy drops off */ 

2. Continue discusion of proposal to changes in checkpoints for Guideline
9: Help Orient the User Proposal: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html 
Last week'ss discussion: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/07/wai-ua-telecon-19990728.html 

a) Proposed Checkpoint: Provide statistical information on document content
[Priority 2] 

IJ: Still seems too general to me. But I like the idea (although language
would be separate for me.) 

GR: Propose overarching checkpoint about configurability. 

KB: What about "quantity of elements" instead of "statistical"? 

IJ: Is it important to know the number of tables? 

RS: I think that's useless info, especially if tables are used for
formatting. 

DP: Provide information about the number of active elements in a document? 

RS: I think that the number of headers is important. Yes, it's important to
know what context you're in. 

IJ: I think that providing a structural view is more important than knowing
the number of headers. 

GR: Structured view very important. 

MN: Knowing the number of data tables is important. I agree with Ian number
of headers not helpful, but knowing heading levels is. 

JG: Is knowing the size of the document useful? Characters, bytes, etc.? 

DP: Characters less interesting than percentage of document viewed. 

IJ: Like proportional scrollbars, but available also non-visually. 

RS: Good thing to know where you are in the DOM (how much has been viewed).
Don't know that that's available today. 

Resolved: 

1. Make available percentage of document viewed. 
2. Make available percentage of document loaded. 
3. Make available that document loading has ended. 
4. Make available information about position of element in document (number
x of y elements, document order). 
In techniques, talk about important elements: headers, links, tables, form
controls. Also, element that has selection or focus. 
IJ: Implementation issue about incremental loading. 
5. Make available information about table cell row/col coordinates. 
6. Document language/language changes available 
7. Whether a link involves a fee. 
Note: This may be covered by an (accessible) user interface. 

ACTION IJ: Send proposed text for resolved checkpoints to list. 

For visited links, GR proposes that this be technique for a more general
checkpoint on configuration. This will be part of his action item on
configuration checkpoint. Also: info about fee, visited, external, etc. 

For other proposed checkpoints: 

Checkpoint: Provide access to header information for a table cell selected
by the user [Priority 1, DUA] 

Group: Ok 

Checkpoint: Ensure that when the selection changes, it is in the viewport
after the change. [Priority 2] 

Checkpoint: Ensure that when the focus changes, it is in the viewport after
the change. [Priority 2] 

Group: Combine these two. 

Checkpoint: Maintain consistent user agent behavior and default
configurations between software releases. Consistency is less important
than accessibility and adoption of system conventions. [Priority 3] 

RS: Mention keyboard defaults explicitly. 

MN: This checkpoint seems like a comment on existing checkpoints. I would
rather tell developers what to do through other checkpoints. This is an
inherent principle that should follow from others. 

DP: I don't think this should be a checkpoint. Focus on accessibility
issues directly, not higher issue. I understand the issue and sympathize,
but documentation is available. 

JG: The goal is to stop developers from indiscriminately changing configs. 

RS: In previous meeting, Glen Gordon and I felt strongly about this one. 

MN: I don't object to it but would like to see it reflected elsewhere in
the document. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Copyright    1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements. 

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, 4 August 1999 14:42:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:15 GMT