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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 25 August 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:49:40 -0700
Message-Id: <199908261944.OAA25527@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:Harvey Bingham
Glenn Gordon
David Poehlman 
Jim Allen
Charles McCathieNevile 
Gregory J. Rosmaita 
Mark Novak
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger 

Regrets: Denis Anson
Allan Cantor 
Kitch Barnicle



Completed Action Items 

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

   2.IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document. 
     Status: Done, will appear in next working draft 

   3.IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available" 
     Status: Done, will appear in next working draft 

   4.IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
     Status: Done, will appear in next working draft 

   5.IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0182.html 

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

   7.IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in
the document..
     Status: Done, will appear in next working draft 

   8.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 working draft 

   9.IJ: Propose reordering to the list. 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0185.html 

  10.CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0208.html 

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

Continued Action Items 

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

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

   3.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. 

   4.HB, RS: Look at techniques document. 

   5.HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 

   6.GR: Run Hal through the guidelines. 

   7.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 

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

   9.KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy Chisholm of
Web Content 

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

  11.RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader. 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: 
     a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about volatility of Working
Drafts and products. 
     b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations. 

   2.IJ Send proposal to WCAG to propose different wording on the
requirement for text rendering by
     UAs. 

   3.IJ: Create a list of metadata elements and techniques for HTML 

   4.CMN: Send proposal to the UA list about including an implementation
period as part of the recommendation process 

   5.CMN: Propose something about schemas. 

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

   7.JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text) 

   8.Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. 

   9.RS: Consider the "applicability clause" and propose rewording of the
conformance statement for checkpoints. 

  10.RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the list related to review of
Home Page Reader. 

  11.Reviewers: Read conformance section of guidelines before testing
sub-grouping of checkpoints
     with current products
 
  12.Reviewers: Should be as specific as possible about product versions,
os versions, etc. 



Minutes

Agenda [1]

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

RSVP Responses

ResolvedFor 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: done 
     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 IJ: 
     a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about volatility of Working
Drafts and products. 
     b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations. 

     Action 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. 

Announcement

JG: Joint meeting between UA and Web content on 26 August 1999 4:00 EST 
Navigation/Grouping techniques. To be coordinated with WCAG WG at
teleconference tomorrow. 

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 

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 IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML. 

Action JA: 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 

Action JG: Will be on agenda for next week. 

Agenda 11) Order of guidelines. ,?h3> 

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. 


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, 26 August 1999 15:44:51 GMT

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