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

MINUTES(Edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 18 August 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:52:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199908191548.KAA12692@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: Denis Anson 
Kitch Barnicle
Charles McCathieNevile 
Gregory J. Rosmaita 
David Poehlman 
Harvey Bingham
Madeleine Rothberg 
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger 

Regrets: Håkon Wium Lie 
Mark Novak
Jim Allan



Action Item Summary

Completed Action Items 

   1.CMN: Technique 3.3 - Propose outline of techniques for user control of
style Techniques 3.3.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0109.html 

   2.CMN: Checkpoint 9.4 and 9.6 - Write a proposal on making this or not
making this checkpoint "for dependent UAs only" (Dropped) 

   3.GR: Guideline 9 - Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for
guideline 9 (any information made available to the user). 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html 

Continued Action Items 

   1.IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document. 

   2.IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available" 

   3.IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML. 

   4.IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions. 

   5.IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes
conservatively to A, B, and C..." 

   6.IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in
the document. 

   7.IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's
in a link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most
we've got). 

   8.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 

   9.GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content. 

  10.HB, RS: Look at techniques document. 

New Action Items 

   1.KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy. (Thanks
Kitch!) Deadline for this action 2 weeks. 

   2.HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 

   3.GR: Run Hal through the guidelines. 

   4.GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration for SELECT form
control behavior. 

   5.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. 

   6.CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines. 

   7.JG: Run IE through guidelines. 

   8.JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document. 

   9.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. 

  10.IJ: Propose reordering to the list. 

  11.IJ: Issue 56 resolution 
     a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6. 
     b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6 
     c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6. 

  12.RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader. 



Minutes 

Agenda 

1) Review of outstanding action items

IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document. 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available" 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML. 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions. 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes conservatively
to A, B, and C..." 
Status: Not done. IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate
relative position in the document. 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a
link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've
got). 
Status: Not done. 

IJ: Checkpoint 6.12 (audio volume): Clarify that checkpoint is for native
handling of sound. 
Status: Not done. 

CMN: Checkpoint 9.4 and 9.6 - Write a proposal on making this or not making
this checkpoint "for dependent UAs only". 
Status: Dropped. 

CMN: I think "dependent/independent" is not a useful dividing line. 

CMN: Technique 3.3 - Propose outline of techniques for user control of
style Techniques 3.3. 
Status: Done. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0109.html 

GR: Guideline 9 - Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for
guideline 9 (any information made available to the user). 
Status: Done. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html 

DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 
Status: Not done. 

GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content. 
Status: Not done. 

HB, RS: Look at techniques document. 

HB Status: No progress. 

Agenda 2) Update on F2F meeting in Redman Washington on October 11th and
12th. 

HB: 11 October is a holiday in the US and Canada. 

JG: Anyone would not attend because of holidays? 

Conclusion: No. 

DA: I probably can't make it since I'll be at ATIA just before. 

Agenda 3) Impact Matrix. 

IJ: Refer to Impact Matrix being developed in GL WG [2] 

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/NOTE-WCAG-impact-matrix-19990810 

DA: Proposes change in terminology "functional limitation" rather than
"disabilitly". It becomes a disability when the environment demands that
function of you. 

HB: Functional limitation may result from bandwidth, environment, etc. 

Action Kitch: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy. (Thanks
Kitch!) Deadline for this action 2 weeks. 

Agenda 4) Categories of assistive technologies 

Issue #77: Validate conformance categories 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#77 

Issue #79: How do specialized browsers like pwWebSpeak and IBM Homepage
Reader conform to the guidelines? 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#79 

JG: Need to identify browsers, assistive techs (including input
technologies), and specialized browsers with particular output in mind. 

IJ: Reminder: 
a) Some kind of conformance clause necessary 
b) Division exists to promote interoperability. 

DP: Where does browsing the Web by phone fit in? I think of guidelines
based on constraints, not application type. But UA developers should be
able to use the
guidelines to enhance accessibility of their product. 

DA: What happened to the discussion going on at different media types? 

JG: Already in guidelines - you don't have to satisfy checkpoints that
don't apply. 

DA: If you make content available to some users, you should make it
available to all users. 

IJ: I don't think we should change the conformance statement unless there's
a proposal for a new category. We've already covered lots of ground w.r.t.
conformance. 

GR: I think the impact matrix will help, notably if one can sort according
to different fields. 

KB: Has anyone tried to apply the guidelines to a UA? 

CMN: I did this with Opera (and did so with Amaya for Authoring Tools
guidelines). Useful exercise for developers as well as editors. Håkon took
away notes, and
I sent a summary [3] to the UA list. 
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0098.html 

CMN: In a review: 
a) Indicate what's been done already 
b) Ask what would be done for those not yet done (and list that as
technique). 

IJ: Please also indicate which assistive technologies work with which
graphical desktop browsers. 

Action HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 

Action GR: Run Hal through the guidelines. 

Action DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. 

Action CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines. 

Action JG: Run IE through guidelines. 

Action IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. 

Action RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader. 

GR: Ask Guido Corona to do this? 

DP: Can we ask for additional assistance with evalutions that haven't been
filled? 

IJ: Yes! 

PLEASE REVIEW using the 9 August draft [4] 
[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/ 

Deadline for these actions 2 weeks. 

Agenda 5) Issue #59:Reorder guidelines to place more important guidelines
at the beginning of the document?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#59 

Action Ian: Propose reordering to the list. 

Agenda 6) Issue #34: Allow the user to view assumed headers associated with
a cell 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#34 

JG: Proposed that in techniques, use header markup when present. But need
repair strategy for incomplete or absent header information. E.g., try
using the first row
and column as headers. 

Action JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document. 

Agenda 7) Issue #44: Navigation of time dependent multimedia elements
rendered to the user (more than just stop, rewind and
fast forward) 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#44 

IJ: In short, present time-independent information in a time-independent
manner (notably links). 

DA: Helps cognitive. 

MK: Helps motor as well. 

JG: Also screen-reader or caption users. 

IJ: Should users be able to override all synchronization? 

MK: Difficult to say in the general case. 

Resolved new checkpoint: Provide time-independent access to time-sensitive
active elements. Priority 1. For all user agents. 

MR: I think this is an appropriate narrowing. 

Agenda 8) Issue #56: Provide orientation to audio (or video) to length
and/or position in the rendering of the information 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#56 

JG: Is it an accessibility issue to know how long a video or audio track
will run? 

MR: Make available this information in a device-independent manner. 

IJ: Covered by checkpoint 1.6. 

DP: Fits into 10.5 pretty much. 

DA: Does streaming work here? 

IJ: Should this be part of document viewing or separate as a "multimedia"
checkpoint? In other words, do I want to know that I'm 10% through the
whole document,
or 50% through the current clip? 

MR: Could be useful to distinguish for multimedia players. However, based
on my current experience with multimedia players, this information is often
there.
Considered useful in general. 

Action Ian: 
a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6. 
b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6 
c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6. 

Agenda 9) Issue #58: Keyboard access to select form controls when there is
an ONCHANGE event handler attached to the
control 
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#58 

IJ: The issue is that some pages have scripts that cause the page to change
when an option is selected. Issue of orientation and user control. 

GR: Refer to my proposal [5] 
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html 

MR: What's the difference between never submit without asking and prompt?
Indeed, a lot of Web pages have a select list that could be activated
automatically, but
there's also a "GO" button for older browsers. 

DA: What's the screen reader behavior when you move among options without
submitting? 

IJ: Four situations: 

   1.a) Never submit, and don't warn me that you're not submitting. 
   2.b) Never submit, and warn me each time that you're not submitting. 
   3.c) Prompt me before submitting. 
   4.d) Don't prompt me before submitting. 

Action GR: Clarify your proposal. 



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 Thursday, 19 August 1999 11:49:09 GMT

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