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

Raw minutes for 15 September 1999 Teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:34:00 -0400
Message-ID: <37DFD888.D334882C@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAGL Teleconference
15 September 1999

Present:

Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs (scribe)
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle
Cathy Laws
Mark Novak
Marja Koivunen

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0359.html

Review of Open Action Items:

   1.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. In progress.

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

   3.HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines. 
         Cancelled for Harvey.
         Reassigned to Jon (for a student?)

   4.RS: Look at techniques document. 
         Not done.

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

   6.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. 
         Not done.

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

   8.CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on this issue to the list. 
         Done since transferred to Ian (about conformance0.

   9.CMN: Propose an example about what UAs can do with schemas.
         Dropped.

  10.MKN: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. 
         Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0357.html

  11.KB: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools 
         Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0362.html
         For next week's call.

  12.JA: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools 
         Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0361.html
         For next week's call.

  13.JA: Propose definitions to the list of what are the characteristics
of
         a DGUA and a DUA.
         IJ: I propose we cancel this in light of 
        
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html

  14.IJ: Find out about MS review of document before F2F and their
         participation in the meeting. 
         IJ: I spoke with Dick Brown yesterday. He's supposed to get
             back to me.

  15.IJ: Find out from Judy about NN attendance at F2F. 
         IJ: I spoke with her. Am waiting for contact info.
             I also wrote to a guy at Mozilla.

  16.IJ: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance at F2F 
         IJ: I spoke with Håkon Lie. He can't attend. Operasoft
             won't attend. Will comment on 27 August Draft.

  17.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) 
     Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html

  18.IJ: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible. 
      Not done.

  19.IJ: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change
priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1]. 
      Not done.

  20.JG: Create a list of AT people to invite to F2F meeting 
      Done. JG: I contacted a number of people. We may get a few
      extra participants, but there are resource issues.

Agenda 1) Finish discussion on 
         Configuration Checkpoints for Guideline 9
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html 

GR: Form control proposal. Ian objected last week to Priority 1.
    I argued that problem with forms is that serial navigation is
    not always sufficient - you may encounter a submit button before
    the form is really over. You want:
     a) Info about accesskey bindings
     b) Tabindex order 
     c) View groups and metadata (LEGEND, LABEL, FIELDSET)

GR: Trying to be somewhere between specific and general.

KB: Would it remain a priority one? 

GR: Perhaps phrase the checkpoint similarly to that for tables.

GR, IJ: P2 ok.

Action IJ: Respond on the list to this proposal. I think we need
     something slightly more abstract.

Agenda 2) Review Ian Jacobs proposal on changes in wording 
          to some checkpoints and priorities for conformance
          if available before the call (15 minutes): 

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

IJ: Refer to [2]
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html

(IJ summarizes [2]).

CL: In the case of table navigation, we don't have a problem.
    We do have problems in that we don't have a visual UI that
    complies. We can send output to Netscape, or have text-based
    output.

IJ: Two issues:
  a) Communication with other software.
  b) Multiple output mechanisms.

MN: Is it better to follow the "interoperable" route or
    just staying where we are; it feels slightly less strict.

Action Working Group: Please review this proposal for next week.

MK: I have some concerns about the very device-specific keyboard
    guideline. It's up front in the guidelines. 

IJ: Current disclaimer in 27 August draft:

   "Checkpoints in this section do not apply to user 
    agents (e.g., kiosks) that do not natively support
    keyboard input."

/* Charles and Mark leave the call */

Agenda 3) Review of impact matrix proposal developed by
          Kitch Barnicle (10 minutes)

     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0300.html
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/NOTE-UAGL-impact-matrix-19990903 

KB: What will this document be used for? 
    
IJ: 
 a) Help people understand which groups of users benefit.
 b) Ensure that different groups' needs are addressed.
 c) Filter out useless checkpoints.

KB: When I was ready to post this, I realized that 
    I hadn't listed mouse as being affected by any 
    checkpoints. 

 Questions:

     1. Include mice as input technologies?
 
        IJ: Yes.

     2. Checkpoint: 9.1: Does highlighting imply visual only
        interfaces? 

        IJ: No.

     3. Review of specific checkpoints.

Action JB: Ask Denis Anson to review this list.

   4.Issue #71: Titles for ABBR and ACRONYM elements (need a technique) 

HB: The technique should address first instances and reuse of 
    the title.

Action HB: Will propose technique to list.

   5.Issue #72: What should UAs do to support author-supplied metadata? 
        1.Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. 
          http://www.w3.org/1999/09/smilmetadatasources.html 
        2.IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML. 
         
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#html-index 
        3.JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated
text) 
         
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0348.html 
        4.CMN: Propose something about schemas. 
         
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0349.html 

  JG: In WCAG teleconf last week we discussed this. It should suffice
      to consider metadata known to promote accessibility. Need
      techniques, therefore, for known metadata sources.

  Resolved: Include as techniques. 
  No Action assigned.

   6.Issue #73: Text rendering of client-side image maps
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73 

  IJ: Has this been done by any existing tools?
  CL: HPR does this. We found that you can have alt on MAP.
  IJ: Not legal on MAP in HTML 4.0. Another idea: If you find
      a title attribute, reuse as "title" in the A element.
  CL: We look for alt, title, URL piece in that order.

  Action CL: Send how HPR does this to the list. 

   7.Issue #76: How to get to frames when the user turns off 
                the rendering of frames (need a technique)
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#76 

  IJ: The issue was "What does it mean when you turn off frames?
      How do you get at the frames?" Why would you want to turn
      of frames?

  GR: For speech, e.g., easier to have linear access or NOFRAMES
      content. Often, browsers don't give access to NOFRAMES unless
      frames turned off.
  
  IJ: What does "turn frames off" mean? I suggest that this means
      that you don't get frame contents, only frame alternative
      content. This is different from non-linear access to 
      to frames (ā la Lynx).

  IJ: How do frames reduce accessibility?

  GR: Screen readers may not let you know that you're in a framed
      view. Also, frames that are related - one may change (and
      be spoken) but you're still in the navigation frame (which
      hasn't changed).

  JG: Also, some cognitive issues. May want a simpler looking page.

  CL: In HPR, we list links to each frame. We also list NOFRAMES
      content.

  IJ: Are we talking about two-dimension rendering only as an
      accessibility problem?

  GR: A lot of sites use content negotiation to send you
      to another site that tells you to get a frame-enabled
      browser. This may happen with Lynx, unless you
      fake your UA declaration.

  CL: Not many sites use NOFRAMES to promote accessibility.

  Resolved:
   For 4.12 add:
       a) Ensure that alt content available when turned off.
       b) Important for screen reader users and some users with
          some cognitive impairments.

  IJ: Ideas for next draft.
      a) For Guideline 4, add reminder to render alt content.
      b) Add rationale for frames.
      c) Add definition of "turn off a frame" to the document
         to distinguish from alternative renderings or navigation.

  Action IJ: Propose a change to 4.12 to the list.

   8.Issue #78: Ian Jacobs Review requirements for window spawning
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0212.html 

   Action JG: Invite Al to meeting next week.
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 13:34:45 UTC

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