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

Raw minutes from 25 August UAGL Teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:36:42 -0400
Message-ID: <37C429AA.7C8718B4@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
User Agent Teleconference
25 August 1999

Present:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Glen Gordon
Mark Novak
David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Marja Kiovunen
Rich Schwertdfeger
Jim Allan
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile

Regrets:
  Denis Anson
  Alan Cantor
  Kitch Barnicle

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0174.html

0) For requests by Jon to RSVP, please respond privately to Jon
   or Ian.

Agenda 1) Review of Action items:

   1.JG: Run IE through guidelines. 
   Status:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0203.html

   2.JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document. 
   Status: Not done.

   3.IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in
document. 
   Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.

   4.IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available" 
   Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.

   5.IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML. 
   Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.

   6.IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions. 
   Status: Done.

   7.IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes
conservatively to A, B, and C..." 
   Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.

   8.IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position
in
the document. 
   Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.

   9.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: Done. Will appear in next draft.

  10.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. 
   Status: Not done.

  11.IJ: Propose reordering to the list. 
   Status: Done.

  12.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. 
   Status: Not done.

  13.HB, RS: Look at techniques document. 
   HB Status: Pending.
   HB Status: Pending.

  14.HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 
   HB Status: Installed it and using it. For next week.

  15.GR: Run Hal + Windowize through the guidelines. 
   HB Status: Pending.

  16.GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration 
         for SELECT form control behavior. 
   Status: Done
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html

  17.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 
   STatus: writing madly.

  18.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. 
   Status: Pending. Lynx 32, IE, NN, and Opera!

   GG: Are these results for internal review only?
   IJ: Working group should decide ultimate scope:
       a) At least Team/WG.
       b) Member-visible for Proposed Rec.
       c) Should they be visible when we go to Recommendation?
  
   CMN: I think it's public by charter requirement.
   JG: Yes, anything posted to the list is public. 
   DP: When AFB did evaluation, we sent results to manufacturer
       for comments before publication. We should consider
       this to encourage (notably assistive technology) developers
       to move towards conformance.

   MK: But is the goal to evalute the guidelines or the product?

   IJ: I propose linking to these reviews from the WG home page
       with a proper disclaimer that these comments don't reflect
       consensus.

   GG: This issue arose since our beta product does a better job
       than what's on the street.

   No objections. Action Ian: 
      a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about
         volatility of Working Drafts and products.
      b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations.
         Reviewers should be as specific as possible about
         product versions, os versions, etc.

  19.KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy. 
        Deadline for this action 2 weeks. 
  Status: Pending.

  20.CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines. 
  Status: Done
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0178.html

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

  22.RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader. 
  Status: Done. Review pending.

Agenda 2) Dependent user agents that may also be considered
          stand-alone user agents.

   RS: For at least 40% of the checkpoints: If you're developing
   a technology like PWWebspeak, market is users with blindness.
   So, turn on/off blinking images should not be imposed
   since not applicable.

   JG: The spec says that if you don't support a particular
   technology (e.g., images) the checkpoint doesn't apply.

   RS: What if you do visual rendering also? What if you 
   render the Web page as would be seen by general user?

  CMN: Like emacsspeak.

   GR: When you talk about visual view of HomePage Reader,
   is this the text-only view, or general graphic view?

   RS: You may want both.

   GR: Specifically about HPR - when you are looking at
     "Netscape view", this isn't controlled by HPR.
     The text view is. I think that there may be a case
     for a third-classification. There may be dependencies,
     but in some rendering cases there may not be
     control. 
 
   IJ: I think that the tool that provides the UI is
     responsible for UI-related checkpoints.

   GR: But onus may be on the rendering engine for 
     some checkpoints. I think there's a case for
     more clarification or a third classification.

   CMN: I don't agree. If HPR passes rendered info
    untouch, that doesn't mean they wash their hands
    of it.

    IJ: Ian reads clause about applicability of
        checkpoints.

    IJ: Question: 1) Is the clause sufficiently visible?
                  2) Does that cover the 40% you
                    are concerned with?

   CMN: For the record: I don't think two classes are useful.
    IJ: Perhaps applicability clause is sufficiently
        flexible that two classes aren't necessary, but 
        I hesitate to reopen that issue.

   Action RS: Consider the "applicability clause"
              and propose rewording. 

   Action RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the
              list.
              
Agenda 3)  Issue 3
   http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#3 

   Navigation/Grouping techniques. To be coordinated with
   WCAG WG at teleconference tomorrow.


Agenda 4) Issue 58 

   http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#58 

   Keyboard access to select form controls when there is an
   ONCHANGE event handler attached to the control 

   Refer to GR's modified proposal: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html

   RESOLVED: Modify checkpoint 10.6. Ian can edit the following
    text from Gregory:

    10.6 Prompt the user to confirm the submission of form content
    if the submission mechanism is not explicitly activated by the 
    user. [Priority 2]

    GR: Techniques in original proposal:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0139.html

Agenda 5) Issue 63: 
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#63 

    Checkpoint proposal from Marja to freeze time-sensitive content. 

    MK: Make available content that depends on time in a 
        time-independent manner. And allow people to "rewind"
        time-sensitive content and find out temporal context
        of particular content.
   
    Same as issue 44, resolved last week to add a checkpoint for
    time-sensitive active elements.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html

    IJ: Do we need more than active elements?

    JA: Is a media element considered an active element?

    IJ: Covered by the multimedia checkpoints.

    Resolved: For now, limit to active elements.

    CMN: I'd like to link this issue back to the conformance
         issue. It's unclear whether the SMIL player 
         conforms as a desktop graphical browser. If it doesn't
         apply, who are we writing this checkpoint for. 
         Unclear from current conformance statement that the
         guidelines apply to the SMIL player. 

Agenda 6) Issue 73 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73 

    Text rendering of client-side image maps 

    IJ: In HTML, "alt" is required on AREA. But other
        ways to create image maps without requiring
        text attributes. "title" may not be present.
        These are techniques.

    MK: I think we need this checkpoint.

    GG: I disagree. Unless there's a way of indicating
        that the text links are duplications. Suppose
        that there's an AREA element without an "alt"
        attribute. We may use the URL and thus speak
        it twice.

    GR: I agree with this concern. I'd rather 
        the dependent user agent get information from
        the markup rather than the renderer get the
        information from duplication.

    IJ: These are links and so covered by checkpoint 1.2.

    RESOLVED:
      a) Don't add a new checkpoint.
         This issue is covered by checkpoint 1.2
      b) Highlight the case of image maps in comment after 1.2
      c) Include techniques for image maps (e.g.,  
         getting alt text of image in link, using title,
         getting external text media objects for SMIL.)

    Action: IJ send proposal to WCAG to propose different
            wording on the requirement for text rendering
            by UAs.

Agenda 7) Issue 72
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#72

     What should UAs do with metadata? (Asked for by WCAG 1.0).

     IJ: Broad issue: might be keywords, supplemental info,
         doc relationships, natural language, navigation
         bar, Dublin Core, etc. 

     JG: Lynx, Amaya use LINK.

     Action CMN: Talk to Dan Brickley about document structure
        and site mapping. Will send a list of tools that
        make use of this information.

     GR: Another issue that keeps popping up for me in the
        guidelines: a lot say "If this happens, do this."
        Metadata one framework for this.

     CMN: For list of links, metadata is the long way around.       

     JG: We need to have a list of metadata elements and
        attributes in HTML, SMIL, also schemas. Perhaps
        add checkpoints related to that which we don't
        already cover.

     (Source means element and attribute).

     Action Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
     Action   Ian: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.
     Action   Jim: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS.
                   (e.g., generated text)
     Action   CMN: Propose something about schemas.
     
     Deadline two weeks.

Agenda 8) Issue 74: 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#74 

     Value of checkpoint on volume control.
     Resolved last week.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html

Agenda 9) Issue 75:
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#75 

    Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs? 

    Proposed: Add "electronic".
    CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in
         electronic form. "Ensure that there is a version of the
         product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"

    Resolved: Change wording of 3.1 as per CMN's proposal.

Agenda 10) Configuration checkpoints.
  GR: Two checkpoints proposed: one for links and one for
      forms.
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html

  JG: Will be on agenda for next week.

Agenda 11) Order of guidelines.

  IJ: See proposal
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0185.html
  DP: Add explanation of order.

  Resolved: Implement this proposal with explanation in upcoming
            draft.


Agenda 12) Reminders:
  a) Next face-to-face in November. Meeting page:
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/1999/10/ua-agenda

  b) Following face-to-face in January

  CMN: Does there need to be an implementation period
       during or after Last Call?

  Action CMN: Send proposal about this to the list.
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 1999 13:36:57 GMT

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