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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 20 October 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:41:13 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991020133426.00bb2900@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
Gregory Rosmaita
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle
Charles McCathieNevile
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger

RSVP Regrets:
Mark Novak
Dick Brown
Wilson Craig
Denis Anson



Action Items

Completed Action Items

    1.IJ: Follow up with Lake on usability questions related to her posting 
to IG.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0023.html
      Status: done
    2.JG: Announce F2F meeting being organized for December on the UA page 
and list.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0125.html
    3.JG: Contact MR about SMIL techniques
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0123.html
    4.JG: Ensure that December F2F meeting is discussed at next telecon.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/wai-ua-telecon-19991020.html
    5.RS: Propose rewording of Checkpoint 1.1
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0098.html
    6.IJ: Contact Microsoft about participation at F2F meeting in Redmond
      Status. Done.
    7.IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be changed 
related to checkpoint 2.1 issues
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0124.html
      Status. Done.
    8.IJ: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table summary 
information (checkpoint 9.9 and 9.10)
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0092.html
      Status: Done.

Continued Action Items

    1.IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just 
W3C technologies.
    2.IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
    3.IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
    4.IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just 
continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
    5.IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
    6.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
    7.JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive 
technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document 
during last call
    8.JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
    9.HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in 
reviewing the document during last call
   10.TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques 
structure.
   11.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
   12.GR: Repropose Checkpoiont 2.5 on user defined keyboard bindings so 
that it's clear that there should be a cascade order whereby the user has
      ultimate control or can concede control to the tool.
   13.MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard 
navigation discussion at F2F meeting
   14.MR: Working on SMIL techniques
   15.CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide 
information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Add this to the spec. For review next week
    2.IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
    3.JG: Decide if we're ready for last call by next Weds.
    4.JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.
    5.JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism.
    6.RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability.



Minutes

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0116.html

1) Review of action items:

    1.1.IJ: Follow up with Lake on usability questions related to her 
posting [2] to IG.
      Status: Done. I called her and we discussed a number of features. She 
will send info to the WG.
      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0023.html
    2.
    3.2.IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than 
just W3C technologies.
      Status: Not done.
    4.3.IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
      Status: Pending.
    5.4.IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
      Status: Not done.
    6.IJ: I haven't had time to work on this yet. It will be essentially 
what we discussed at the FTF.
    7.5.IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just 
continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
      Status: Not done.
    8.6.IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
      Status: Not done.
    9.7.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
      Status: Pending.
   10.8.JG: Announce F2F meeting being organized for December on the UA 
page and list.
      Status: Done.
   11.9.JG: Contact MR about SMIL techniques
      Status: Done. MR (Madeleine Rothberg) will send.
   12.10.JG: Talk to Wilson Craig off-line about contacts for assistive 
technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document 
during last
      call
      Status: Not done.
   13.11.JG: Ensure that December F2F meeting is discussed at next telecon.
      Status: Done.
   14.12.JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
      Status: Done.
   15.13.HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested 
in reviewing the document during last call
      Status: ?
   16.14.TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October 
Techniques structure.
      Status: ?
   17.15.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
      Status: Pending.
   18.16.GR: Repropose Checkpoint 2.5 on user defined keyboard bindings so 
that it's clear that there should be a cascade order whereby the user has
      ultimate control or can concede control to the tool.
      Status: GR did thinking out loud on PF list. Took the pulse there. 
Should something be fixed in UA or elsewhere?
   19.17.MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard 
navigation discussion at F2F meeting
      Status: ?
   20.19.CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide 
information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
      Status: Pending.
   21.20.RS: Propose rewording of Checkpoint 1.1
      Status: Done.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0097.html
   22.21.JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines
      Status: Done.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/uagl-checklist-pww-311
   23.22.JG: Contact Lakespur Roca related to posting for review of 
keyboard support
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html
      Status. Done.
   24.23.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
      Status. Done, indirectly at ftf.
   25.24.IJ: Contact Microsoft about participation at F2F meeting in Redmond
      Status. Done.
   26.25.IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be 
changed related to checkpoint 2.1 issues
      Status. Done.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0124.html
   27.26.IJ: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table 
summary information (checkpoint 9.9 and 9.10)
      Status: Done.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0092.html

2) FTF meeting in December

RS: 7/8 December better for IBM (Austin). Week of the 14th is very bad 
(conf room booked, RS in classes). Don't know about room availability for
9/10.

Who can attend: 9/10: GR, IJ, JG, RS

Unsure: CMN (depends on AU),

KB (question of permission).

HB (issue of access workshop at XML WS).

MRK (may be in Findland).

CMN: Process issues - meetings require 8 weeks from meeting notice. 
Exception case ok when WG has consensus about meeting.

JG: If we don't go to last call next week, we may have to delay the 
meeting. If we don't go to last call until after AC meeting, wouldn't meet 
to process last
call until mid-January.

CMN: Mid-january would be good for me.

RS: I'll be at a conf first week of Nov. I need to know as soon as possible.

Action RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability.

Action IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.

Action JG: Decide if we're ready for last call by next Weds.

3) TODO for last call:

a) Document Chair's/WG's decision to go to last call. (Done at next week's 
teleconf).

b) Identify dependencies and track their responses in a specific list.

Action JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.

c) Identify issues and track them in the issues list (annotate the existing 
issues list mechanism?). Get sign-off from individuals who raised issues?

Action JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism.

d) Charter up to date. Ok.

4) Issue #105: ACCESSKEY implementation issues

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#105

GR: IE implements accesskey somewhat.

JG: Does Opera implement accesskey?

GR: Not in v. 3.6. PWWebspeak latest version may.

CMN: Amaya does not.

GR: One reason I haven't proposed yet to UA is that I'm deciding whether 
this is part of G2 (keyboard) or G6 (UI) or G8 (Navigation). Also, I don't want
to lose Tim Lacy's point from face-to-face: user doesn't care where 
bindings come from (author or UA). Only wants to know:
a) What's available
b) How to invoke them
c) What to expect from them.

GR: Discussion in PFWG about handling accesskey. Should PF look into CSS3 
user interface? I don't have much faith in implementation as defined in
CSS3. The onus is on the author to write platform-specific bindings. It's 
not the role of the UAGL to fix broken things.

JG: Author, through accesskey, is adding user interface. Concerned about 
author's intent. Also, with current accesskey specification, no way to notify
author of intent.

CMN: I don't agree. You can look at markup and say "This key provides 
access to this object."

IJ: You could ask users to provide "title" descriptions.

GR: What is needed (in terms of checkpoints):

1) List of key bindings (default [P1] + current [P1])

2) List changes from default.

3) Cascade order from bindings

a) don't override or allow override of defaults

b) alert user to author-supplied bindings

c) remap conflicting mappings to unused bindings.

4) Consistent behavior on activation. Does accesskey switch focus alone or 
do focus + activate? For screen reader users, I prefer focus alone; decide
based on context. May want a cascade here: focus, focus + activate (with 
prompt for configuration).

RS: I'm for cascading of bindings.

KB: About remapping: what's involved in that from a developer's perspective?

CMN: The user doesn't care where controls are designed. Only cares about 
how to operate the UA.
You can use CSS to document what's got an access key.

IJ: How will GR's proposal differ from what's in current G2? From what I've 
heard it sounds like there aren't big issues.

KB: Recall that priority was an issue (due to WCAG).

GR: What's different: Everyone agreed that 2.5 was insufficient: on/off 
insufficient since a cascade is required. May need several checkpoints, may 
need to
put elsewhere.

MK: Turn on/off is like a different mode. When you cascade, you may lose 
consistency of mapping.

/* Digression into Guideline 2: whether or not to abstract to other devices 
than the keyboard */

CMN: Separating author-supplied bindings is a mistake.

IJ: I agree: 2.5 should be about user final control of configuration.

HB: When an author changes a binding that the user wants, this flies in the 
face of UA design.

CMN: I think the priority of accesskeys in WCAG is orthogonal to letting 
the user know how the UA works.

IJ: I think that most of GL2 is not about the keyboard (as MRK has suggested).

CMN: I agree.

RS: Consensus at ftf was to keep keyboard separate.

IJ: I think it's an editorial issue to ensure that the emphasis on keyboard 
access is not lost. I guarantee that the keyboard emphasis will not be lost.

MK: I think it's important to have "keyboard" in the checkpoints. It's not 
clear to me what it means in 2.1 that if you support the keyboard API, 
support the
keyboard.

IJ: The key word is "all".

JG: I think we need to move this document forward and we may need to 
restrict ourselves to keyboard here to finish.

IJ: I think there's little effort to abstract slightly and it would be 
worth it.

5) Issue #106: Proposed Abstract revision

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#106 No 
objections. Editorial.

6) Issue #107: Proposed new checkpoint: 6.7 Support assistive technology 
accessibility standards defined for plug-in and
virtual machine systems used by your browser

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#107

RS: Effort has been made to create accessibility environments (e.g., Java). 
We need to ensure that standard system functions are implemented by browsers
in this environment.

JG: Is this a technique?

RS: For Java in particular, this is a technique (Java Accessibility API). 
Today, browsers aren't implementing the accessibility features of 
environments. Like
writing a windows browser without supporting MSAA. Do we extend existing 
system conventions Checkpoint?

GR: I support separate checkpoint?

CMN: I'd like to reuse existing one.

IJ: I would say priority 2.

CMN: I say priority 1. The requirement is implicit in other checkpoints on 
APIs and conventions. I don't think that we should higlight the specific 
case of,
say Java Accessibility API. But recently, this was missed by a major browser.

GR: Need to ensure that developers are aware of virtual machines in 
addition to their own software.

RS: I think strongly that this is Priority 1.

JG: Are these standards specific or general?

RS: FCK is a general purpose "screen reader" that talks to java components 
that have implemented java access support. Or it can be components that talk
by launching the AT in the virtual machine. What's missing: ability to load 
an AT that will run in the accessible environment. Also, IE and Netscape don't
have the built-in java access API that would come with the JVM shipped with 
the browser. These browsers are not following industry conventions for the
environment in question.

CMN: For any plug-in environment, you must support the accessibility 
standards.

RS: Add Java examples.

IJ: Proposed: Comply with accessibility standards for supported plug-in and 
virtual machine environments.

CMN: Sounds a lot like: Comply with accessibility standards. Propose adding 
to note that this applies to plugins, virtual machines, etc.

IJ: Propose adding to "Use operating system and programming language 
accessibility resources and conventions, including for plug-in and virtual 
machine
environments."

RS: How do you handle conflicting standards: system conventions vs. open 
standards? Should they have to do both?

GR: We should favor interoperable.

JG: I doubt W3C should promote a particular standard that it doesn't produce.

Resolved: Add this as a Note to existing checkpoint.

Action Ian: Add this to the spec. For review next week


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
College of Applied Life Studies
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
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 14:36:43 GMT

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