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

MINUTES(Edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 6 October 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:36:36 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19991006133536.00b33ab0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman 
Mark Novak
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
Al Gilman
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Daniel Dardailler 

Regrets: 
Gregory J. Rosmaita 



Action Items

Completed Action Items 

   1.JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0049.html
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0056.html
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0059.html 

   2.IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution of the
conformance issues related to assistive technology
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0447.html 

Continued Action Items 

   1.JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines
     Status: Contact pwWebSpeak person to finish the review 

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

   3.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows. 

   4.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines 

   5.MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note. 

New Action Items 

   1.JG: Contact MR about SMIL techniques 

   2.JG: Contact Lakespur Roca related to posting for review of keyboard
support
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html 

   3.JG: Review RS comments on current working draft and update the issue list
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0063.html 

   4.IJ: Contact Microsoft about participation at F2F meeting in Redmond 

   5.IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be changed
related to checkpoint 2.1 issues 

   6.IJ: Split Checkpoint 1.1 into support device indepdence and use
standard APIs. Clarify that not all APIs required. Results
     dependent on Rich proposal. 

   7.IJ: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table summary
information (checkpoint 9.9 and 9.10) 

   8.IJ Change title of Guideline 7 to reflect more than just w3c
technologies accessibility 

   9.IJ: Add checkpoint 6.6 to guidelines 7 

  10.RS: Propose rewording of Checkpoint 1.1 



Minutes 

Agenda [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/wai-ua-telecon-19991006.html#agenda 

1) Review of action items:

   1.JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines. 
     Status: Harvey suggested someone at pwWebSpeak who could do the review 

   2.JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames 
     Status: Done. 

   3.GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content. 
     Status: no information 

   4.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows. 
     Status: no information 

   5.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines 
     Status: Will be done for face-to-face. 

   6.MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note. 
     Action JG: Will contact Madeleine. 

   7.IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution of the
conformance issues related to assistive technology Status: Done. 

2) Announcements:

   1.1.No telecon on 13 October 1999 

   2.2.Send agenda items to UA face-to-face. 

   3.3.DOM 2 in last call until 8 October. 

3) Agenda items for face-to-face?

(No input from those present). 

DP: Will Netscape be at the meeting? 

IJ: I've written Mozilla but haven't gotten a reply. 

Action JG: I will invite Lake Rocca to WG and face-to-face. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html 

4) Issue #96: Issues related to Checkpoint 2.1: Mapping of user agent
functions to control mechanisms
and memory demands related to sequential/direct access to functionalities.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#96 

IJ: Any proposals? 

AG: The way I understand Marja's issue that is not currently covered: it's
possible for discrete access strategies to fail because they
require too many steps. There are two separate issues in terms of the logic: 
a) Visual/Memory 
b) Multistep/Single step 

People can fail to use key access to print because the number of keystrokes
becomes a burden. 

IJ: 5 October version has requirement of single key access for frequently
used functionalities. 

JG: Summarizing 
a) How can we encapsulate demands on memory in a checkpoint? 
b) Orientation issue: keyboard commands must be documented. 

Action IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be changed. 

5) Additional checkpoint suggestions:

RS: a) Section 6 on observe standards. There's no checkpoint that addresses
loading Java applets into the JVM. Proposed in [2]: 

6.7 Support plug-in and virtual machine system conventions for loading and
running an assistive technology. For example, the Sun Java
virtual machine supports loading and running of assistive technologies.
(priority 1) 

Action JG: Add this to issues list. 

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0063.html 

6) Issue #89: Proposed changes in conformance based on interoperable UA and
non-interoperable UA 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#89 

PROPOSAL 1)

IJ: I proposed splitting 1.1. I think that two important concepts should be
separated. 

No objections to the split. 

IJ: Also related: Does a tool have to support ALL OS input device APIs? 

Resolved: Clarify 1.1 so that UAs don't have to support all input device
APIs available on an OS. If you support a type of
API, support the system standard API. 

MN: Note that MS Platform requires support for both mouse and keyboard
APIs. The UAGL only requires keyboard API support.
Thus, in this case, the UAGL is less strict than the MS platform guidelines. 

RS: Perhaps a checkpoint that says to use "most common API" for the system
(which might be pen input, for example). 

JG: Can we put this somewhere in Guideline 1? 

RS: Can we include examples? 

Action Rich: Draft a proposal for a checkpoint about using "common"
input/output device APIs for the given system. 

Action Ian: Split 1.1, clarify that not all APIs required. Results
dependent on Rich proposal. 

PROPOSAL 2)

Ensure that the user has access to the content of an element selected by
the user. 

IJ: I changed "content" to "structure". 

JG: I prefer "content" 

HB: I think "structure" is also important. 

IJ: Do 3.1, 9.2, and 8.3 count? 

RS: Ensure that the user has access to the content of an element selected
by the user programmatically, through a dependent user
agent, or through voice input. 

IJ: So just shorten to "Ensure that the user has access to the selected
content." 

RS: So just remove "for dependent user agents" 

Resolved: "Ensure that the user has access to selected content." Change
Note to mention programmatic access, structure, and that
cell content can spoken, etc. 

PROPOSAL 3) Checkpoint 3.3. This checkpoint should not be for dependent
user agents only. Refer to issue 84.

Resolved: For all user agents. 

PROPOSAL 4) Checkpoint 8.3. Proposed for all user agents and adding a Note.

IJ: Any reason to single out tables? 

CMN: I don't think there's any reason. Tables are two-dimensional, so they
pose an additional problem of access. The critical part is
access to relevant information, which includes table structure. 

KB: If there's a checkpoint for table navigation, then we can drop this. 

DP: We definitely need to emphasize table navigation. There are probably
other multi-dimensional elements and we could regroup
them. I don't want to bury a table navigation checkpoint. 

IJ: What should the priority be? 

Resolved: Leave 8.3. Make for all user agents. Add Note proposed by Ian. 

PROPOSAL 5) Checkpoint 9.2. The current text:

Provide the user with information about the number of viewports. 

IJ: What's the goal here? Is it actually the number of viewports? 

IJ: Change to "Provide a list of open viewports (including frames)."? 

IJ: "Provide information about viewport structure and focus." E.g., the
structure of a frameset. 

Resolve: Delete based on new 9.3 

PROPOSAL 6) Checkpoint 9.3 

Proposed: Allow the user to view a document outline built from its
structural elements (e.g., from header and list elements). 

IJ: For all user agents. Does "page source" count? 

Consensus: Page source doesn't suffice. 

Resolved: Make 9.3 for all user agents. Mention frames explicitly. 

PROPOSAL 7) 

Proposal: Make Guideline 7 for all open standards. 

No objections to moving 6.6 to Guideline 7. 

Action Ian: 
1) Guideline 7 more than just about w3c technologies 
2) Add checkpoint 6.6 

ISSUE) What do we do about 9.9 and 9.10 (cell headers and table dimensions)? 

JG: I'd like to keep 9.9. 

DP: I'd like to keep 9.10. 

Action Ian: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table summary
information. 

Adjourned

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, 6 October 1999 14:31:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:34 GMT