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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 8 September

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:56:21 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990908135409.00cc2ae0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: Kitch Barnicle 
David Poehlman 
Harvey Bingham
Jim Allan
Mark Novak
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Marja Koivunen 
Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets: none

Completed Action Items 

   1.IJ: Create a list of metadata elements and techniques for HTML
     http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#html-index 

   2.IJ: Send a detailed call for review to the IG. 

   3.HBLook at techniques document. 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0353.html 

   4.CMN: Send proposal to the UA list about including an implementation
period as part of the recommendation process
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0326.html 

   5.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. 
     Status: done, URL will be updated later 

   6.JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text) 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0348.html 

   7.JG: Include in RSVP a request for inidicating completion of action items 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0346.html 

Continued Action Items 

   1.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. not done 

   2.IJ: In document, highlight existence of "native" and "applies to". 

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

   4.RS: Look at techniques document. 

   5.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 

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

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

   8.CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on this issue to the list. 

   9.CMN: Propose something about schemas 

  10.MKN: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. 

New Action Items 

   1.KB: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools 

   2.JA: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools 

   3.JA: Propose definitions to the list of what are the characteristics of
a DGUA and a DUA. 

   4.IJ: Find out about MS review of document before F2F and their
participation in the meeting. 

   5.IJ: Find out from Judy about NN attendance at F2F. 

   6.IJ: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance at F2F 

   7.IJ: Propose list of checkpoints that are "sensitive" (affect targetted
UAs) and propose variable priorities/rewording for them. (Look at HPR's
evaluation sent
     by Jim Thatcher:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0234.html) 

   8.IJ: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible. 

   9.IJ: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change
priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1]. 

  10.JG: Create a list of AT people to invite to F2F meeting



Minutes

Agenda [1], [2] [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0345.html [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0351.html

Agenda 0: Review of action items:

   1.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. 
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/uagl-checklist-nn4.60 
   2.IJ: Create a list of metadata elements and techniques for HTML 
     Done. Refer to WCAG. 
   3.IJ: Send a detailed call for review to the IG. Done. 
   4.IJ: In document, highlight existence of "native" and "applies to". 
     For next draft. 
   5.HB, RS: Look at techniques document. 

     HB: Review of Techniques 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0353.html 

     RS: Will send in comments on Techniques. 

   6.HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 
     Status: Not done. 
   7.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques 
     Status: Not done. 
   8.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. 
     Status: Not done. 
   9.GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content. 
     Status: Not done. 
  10.CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on conformance to the list. 
     Status: Not done. 
  11.CMN: Send proposal to the UA list about including an implementation
period as part of the recommendation process 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0326.html 
  12.CMN: Propose something about schemas
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0349.html 
  13.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. 
     Status: Done. 
     Conclusion: Don't think we have a checkpoint-level requirement at this
stage. 
  14.JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0348.html 
  15.Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. Almost done. 
  16.JG: Include in RSVP a request for inidicating completion of action
items Status: Done. 

Agenda 1) Review of AU last call.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0207.html 

HB: I sent comments about XML info. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0212.html 

IJ: I sent comments. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0211.html 

DP: Have the AUGL been evaluated with real authoring tools? 

CMN: Yes. We have authoring tool developers in the WG. We've done
conformance tests thoroughly with a couple of tools. We would like to see
more testing.
The conformance test with Amaya is part of the Techniques document. 

CMN: I'd like to exclude Gregory, Ian, Jim from review since they are
intimately involved with the process. 

CMN: We want: 

   1.A statement that the AU satisfies all needs of the UA Guidelines. 
   2.Review from anyone. 

Action Jim, Kitch: Send list of dependencies between AU and UA WGs to the
AU and UA lists. 

Gregory also says he will review the guidelines. 

Agenda 2) Face-to-face/Last call.

Reminder: Sign up for UAGL face to face, 11-12 October at Microsoft.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/1999/10/ua-agenda 

IJ: WAI Team met yesterday. Consensus to wait until after face-to-face. 

Resolved: Go to last call after the face-to-face meeting. 

Action Ian: Find out about MS review of document before ftf and their
participation in the meeting. 

Action Ian: Find out from Judy about NN attendance. 

Action Ian: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance. IJ: Will talk to
Håkon Lie. 

HB: Softquad's HotMetal. 

Action JG: Compose list of assistive technology developers for invitation
to ftf. 

Agenda 3) Conformance.

JG: I think that we require a third category for specialized tools. Not
designed for general use. But we should still have something for them in
the document. A
category for them would resemble the dependent UA category. For both of
these types, we need to address the issue of device-independence. I looked
at charter,
which discusses interoperability, but not necessarily between dependent UAs. 

RS: Would another group require a major rewrite of the document? 

IJ: No. 

CMN: But requires lots of thought... 

CMN: My problem with the whole concept is that if I target a particular
market, but provide a customizable browser, I don't have to worry about
interoperability.
This is a description of Netscape Navigator (Mozilla). Their targeted
audience is people using a desktop graphical browser. 

RS: I mean targetted for a particular disability. 

CMN: You can build lists that allow you to compose lists to let you target
whatever. 

IJ: What about just re-examining the device independent checkpoint, for
example? Just say that if you support a particular API, you must do it
accessibly. 

KB: So same set of checkpoints, just different definition of "applies to"? 

IJ: Yes. 

MN: I agree with Charles. I'm concerned about how people will twist around
the document. Can we be more specific in the Techniques? 

IJ: I think the Techniques are too informative. 

RS: One part bugs me: communication between dependent user agents.
Targetted user agents (e.g,. multi-platform) that try to meet accessibility
guidelines don't have
resources for doing communication when this is not their targetted audience. 

CMN: I have a problem saying a targetted tool is an accessible user agent.
They are useful, but don't belong in this document. Or at least conformance
doesn't
apply. 

GR: I don't think targetted information should be included in a general
document. (Said this last week). Also, the impact matrix will be useful for
targetted UAs to
find out what applies to different groups. I don't think another
subclassing will help. 

JG: What about tweaking other definitions? 

GR: More reasonable approach. I'd have to review a concrete proposal. E.g.,
in the case of HPR, the graphical view is available to the user (on demand). 

IJ: Recall this from UAGL (about native support): "A user agent supports a
feature natively if it does not require another piece of software (e.g.,
plug-in or external
program) for support." 

RS: With HPR, you have several options for having Netscape render info. HPR
could be considered a dependent user agent, but it targets a particular
audience. 

MK: I was thinking about device-independence. If the dependent UA gives an
interface for the information (e.g., speech) then you can use the
guidelines. E.g., are
we requiring UAs to provide a keyboard API? 

DP: Most dependent UAs I know of allow multiple device input. PwWebSpeak
has more standard components available than HPR. So I see HPR more as a
screen reader for Netscape. 

CMN: We're talking about a conformance statement that will allow HPR,
PWWebSpeak, etc. can conform. I think this is a mistake. 

RS: I think it's unreasonable to ask ATs to support all the other AT
requirements. Dependent UAs are an enhancement, providing secondary access. 

IJ: I think including in this document will promote interoperability even
if people don't have to satisfy all the checkpoints. Just being there will
benefit developers. 

RS: I propose variable priorities. E.g., Priority 2 for dependent UAs. 

IJ: Note danger of saying "Don't have to do this since we don't have
resources." Can use that argument for not providing accessible documentation. 

CMN: This WG is not chartered for creating legal requirements. Broad
guidelines fit too many people and doesn't fit anyone in the end. I like
the variable priority
approach. 

RS: I'd hate to not encourage people to develop assistive technologies
because the interoperability requirements are too strong. 

JG: Seems to be consensus not to have more than two categories. 

JA: There's no definition of graphical desktop browser or dependent UA. 

Action Ian: Propose list of checkpoints that are "sensitive" (affect
targetted UAs) and propose variable priorities/rewording for them. (Look at
HPR's evaluation.) 

Action Jim: Propose definitions to the list. 

Agenda 4) Configuration checkpoints.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html 

GR: Two checkpoints proposed (and list of techniques) 

     a) One for links: Allow user to configure what information about links
is presented. [P1] (Would replace 9.5 and 9.6 in 27 Aug draft). 
     b) One for form controls: Allow the user to view a list of FORM
controls. [P1]. 

DP: I like merging a with 9.5 and 9.6. 

IJ: 

     a) Rationale of 9.6 lost if merged with (a). 
     b) I don't think should be priority 1. 

JA: Gregory has two checkpoints that he's rolled together View, focus info
available and configurability confusing. 

GR: Then drop the second sentence from first proposed checkpoint. About
checkpoint 9.5: 

GR: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible. 

Action Ian: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible. 

GR: I think that configurability is important, but also need a maximum
amount of information about links is important. Propose 9.5 and 9.6 as P2. 

Action Ian: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change
priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1]. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html 

Discussion of proposed checkpoint for FORM controls list: 

IJ: I don't think should be P1. 

GR: Then P2. Tabbing can be disorienting if you don't know tab order. 

IJ: How does list of form controls help? 

JA: Helps when form is designed poorly (e.g., submit button is followed
graphically by other important controls). 

DP: Would a correctly coded form require this information? 

IJ: Example of submit button after other controls can be valid HTML. 

Conclusion: Unresolved, put on agenda for next week 

Regrets for next week RS, Cathy Laws should be there. 



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
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
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.w3.org/wai/ua
		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 1999 14:51:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC