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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 27 October 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:14:32 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991027160747.00abe340@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Charles McCathieNevile
Mickey Quenzer
Mark Novak
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Harvey Bingham
Jim Allan
Jim Thatcher
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Dick Brown
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:
Denis Anson
David Poehlman
Kitch Barnicle

Action Items

Completed Action Items

    1.IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just 
W3C technologies.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    2.IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    3.IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just 
continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0130.html

    4.IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0131.html

    5.IJ: Add RS proposal related to VM and plug-ins into to checkpoint for 
using accessible interfaces. For review next week
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    6.IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
      Status: done

    7.JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0167.html

    8.JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
      Status: done

    9.RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability for next F2F meeting.
      Status: done

   10.CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide 
information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
      Status: Done. Subsumed by 110.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0157.html

Continued Action Items

    1.IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting

    2.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered

    3.JG: Decide if we're ready for last call

    4.JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism 
for last call comments

    5.JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive 
technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document 
during last
      call

    6.HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in 
reviewing the document during last call

    7.TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques 
structure (wait for next draft).

    8.MR: Working on SMIL techniques

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

   10.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.

   11.MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard 
navigation discussion at F2F meeting

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Contact RealNetworks to agree to review last call draft when 
available

    2.IJ: Update proposal for checkpoint 1.1 based todays discussion

    3.IJ: Add Note on proposed checkpoint 1.2 that it is a specialization 
of proposed checkpoint 1.1

    4.IJ: Add an example of standard output to 1.3.
      Refer to RS's email:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0164.html

    5.IJ: Add Note on proposed checkpoint 1.4 that it is a specialization 
of proposed checkpoint 1.1

    6.IJ: Moved proposed Checkpoint 11.1 to Guideline 12 on documentation 
and make changes based on todays discussion

    7.JG: Contact HR on Eurpoean reviewers

    8.HB: Contact Steve Anderson (of Dragon Systems) to agree to review 
last call draft when available.

    9.MN: Contact someone at United Cerebral Palsy to agree to review last 
call draft when available

   10.MN: Repropose wording for Ian's proposed Checkpoint 1.5 described in:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0157.html

   11.DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last 
call draft when available

   12.DB: Contact Tim Lacy on reviewing guidelines with IE developers. Ask 
him to wait until next draft (probably Monday)

   13.DB: Propose split checkpoints about configuration.

   14.MQ: Find someone from WinAmp, SigTuna to agree to review last call 
draft when available

   15.CMN: Send info about MS Word provides this information to users

   16.GR: Send techniques for how to provide author info.

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0161.html

1) Review action items

    1.IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just 
W3C technologies.
      Status: Done
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    2.IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
      Status: Done
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    3.IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
      Status: Pending, expected document Friday or Monday.

    4.IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just 
continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
      Status: Done
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0130.html

    5.IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
      Status: Done
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0131.html

    6.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
      Status: Not done.

    7.IJ: Add RS proposal related to VM and plug-ins into to checkpoint for 
using accessible interfaces. For review next week
      Status: Done
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/

    8.IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
      Status: Pending

    9.JG: Decide if we're ready for last call by next Weds.
      Status: Postpone until 3 November meeting

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

   11.JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism 
for last call comments
      Status: Not done.

   12.JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive 
technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document 
during last call
      Status: Not done.

   13.JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
      Status: done

   14.HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in 
reviewing the document during last call
      Status: Not done.

      Action JG: Contact HR.

   15.TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques 
structure.
      Status: Not done.

      Action DB: Contact TL.

      IJ: If he hasn't done it, wait for next draft.

   16.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
      Status: Pending.

   17.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.
      Status: Depends on outcome of issue 110.

   18.MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard 
navigation discussion at F2F meeting
      Status: Pending.

   19.MR: Working on SMIL techniques
      Status: Pending.

   20.CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide 
information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
      Status: Done. Subsumed by 110.

   21.RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability for next F2F meeting.
      Status: done

2) Announcements

2.1) Looking for reviewers for Last call document. Jon has started to put 
together list. Please send names of people from various organizations.

(Refer to message also from HB: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0174.html )

RS: Contact: Linda Boyer at IBM (Via Voice) lboyer@us.ibm.com phone 
561-615-4633

Action IJ: Contact RealNetworks.

Action HB: Contact Steve Anderson (of Dragon Systems).

Action MN: Contact someone at United Cerebral Palsy

Action DB: Contact person in Windows media group.

Action MQ: Find someone from WinAmp, SigTuna

2.2) Decision to go to last call will be made at 3 November teleconf. Last 
call itself won't occur until a couple of days afterwards (to finish
editing, compose letter to chairs@w3.org).

2.3) Techniques document.

IJ: In progress.
- New structure
- Incorporate content, including content from ftf.

MQ: Heading levels are useful.

IJ: We already use them. I'll keep in mind as I restructure

3) Issue #110: Proposed changes to Guidelines 1, 2, and 11 re: keyboard

      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#110
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#109
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#105

Proposed changes [2] to G1, G2, and G11.

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/g1g2-proposal

MQ: I liked proposed text from GR:

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0172.html

1.1 Ensure that all functionalities offered through the user interface are 
available through input device APIs
implemented by the user agent. Functionalities include installation 
procedures, control of the user interface, access to
documentation, and configuration. [Priority 1]

IJ: Any strong objections?

RS: I agree in principle but require more clarity.

MK: I agree in principle but require more clarity.

JT: I have some. Too general.

JT: This is basically requiring keyboard input with the mouse.

IJ: Not every API allows.

MK: Why not require text input with the mouse? You can also use your eyes 
to designate information on the screen.

RS: Onscreen keyboards are custom applications (or may be included with the 
OS).

Resolved: Don't require UAs to provide native support for text input with a 
pointing device.

RS: People want assistive techs to work with software in general, therefore 
people would only use the standard API.

JT: I like this note: "Note: User agents are not required to reimplement 
low-level functionalities (e.g., for character input or pointer motion) 
that are
inherently bound to a particular API and most naturally implemented through 
that API." However, change "Note:" to "However,".

RS: I think standard APIs should be part of 1.1.

MK: Is 1.1. more about making the functionalities accessible or about 
standard APIs? It's not clear to me what "API" me.

IJ: In one checkpoint, talk about all functionalites. In another, talk 
about use standard APIs.

Resolved: Add Ian's clarification to 1.1 changing "Note:" to "However".

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0165.html

Action Ian: incorporate this in draft.

1.2 Ensure that the user can interact with all active elements in a device 
independent manner. [Priority 1]

JT: I think we need to say explicitly that 1.2 is special case of 1.1.

MQ: Make clear that no x/y coords necessary.

Resolved: Add Note that this is a specialization of 1.1

Action Ian: Clarify note after 1.2.

1.3 Support standard input and output device APIs for the operating system. 
[Priority 1]

Ok.

Action IJ: Add an example of standard output to 1.3.
Refer to RS's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0164.html

1.4 Ensure that all functionalities offered through the user interface are 
available through the standard keyboard API.

OK.

Resolved: Add Note that this is a specialization of 1.1

1.5 Ensure that information output as part of operating the user agent is 
available through ouput device APIs
implemented by the user agent. [Priority 1]

JT: I don't understand it. I don't know why it's there.

JG: Part of what this means to me is that if you write text, you should use 
text drawing routines so that ATs can intercept it.

IJ: Sounds like use 1.3 for me.

RS: I read 1.3 as support for the offscreen model. Support standard output 
APIs so that screen readers can get text.

GR: Propose: Putting technique about text drawing (from ftf) as example 
after 1.3.

Need clarification that 1.5 does not mean: output all text as speech or 
output images as sound.

DB: I don't see why we need 1.5.

MK: If you only give visual feedback for UA messages, that's unacceptable.

IJ: Previous version only spoke of messages from the UA. Technique: Use text.

MN: The more I listen, the more I think it's important to talk about 
redundancy. It doesn't make sense for a self-voicing UA to not be able to 
read its own
menu.

GR, MK: I agree.

IJ: If you support an API, you have to support it consistency. Beeps are 
different from speech synthesis.

CMN: Following a link is a classic example of not wanting to move through 
two-dimensional space. Or selecting a menu entry.

PREVIOUS TEXT FROM [4]

1.6 Ensure that all messages to the user (e.g., warnings, errors, etc.) are 
available through standard output device APIs supported by the operating
system. [Priority 1]

[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991005/

NOTE:
1.3 is about system standards.
1.5 is about redundancy of output.

Action MN: Repropose wording for 1.5 described in [3].

On Guideline 11:

11.1 Document the default input configuration for the keyboard, graphical 
user interface, voice commands, etc.
[Priority 1] >/h3>

IJ: Any strong objections?

JT: I have some. Too general. Difficult to understand.

MQ: I don't understand it either.

CMN: Document how the tool works.

Proposed: "Document the default input configuration"

DB: Why is this necessary?

JG: Original intent was to improve traditionally poor documentation of 
keyboard configuration.

JT: I don't think you should document the default GUI.

CMN: What does an icon that looks like a waffle mean?

RS: I think that 11.1 is on the right track, but that GUI is considered an 
output mechanism.

IJ: I left "keyboard" in to highlight.

JA: Ian defined "input configuration".

DB: I don't understand why 11.1 is there when there's a more general 
documentation checkpoint.

IJ: This is a special case.

DB: Proposed deleting 11.1, moving to Documentation Guideline.

Resolved: "Document the default input configuration."

Resolved: Put rationale in checkpoint Note (e.g., using quote from Nov 1998 
draft). Also mention keyboard explicitly.

Resolved: Move 11.1 to Document Guideline. Note that this is a special case.

11.2: Provide information to the user about the current input configuration.

DB: Accesskey different from what the UA allows to change.

IJ: I think that source unimportant. The user simply wants to know what the 
current config is.

DB: If you put accesskey in as an author, it's up to the author to document 
it.

CMN: I disagree.

GR: In my last post, I pointed out that Accesskey is not the issue. It's an 
issue of user control.

IJ: Why should I tell the UA how to use TABLE? It's part of the spec.

CMN: The UA determines how links are activity. Links are provided by the 
author. The UA implements the mechanism. In the same way, the UA
implements accesskey. The UA implements the control and decides how it's 
done. The author has no way of knowing what the UA will do, in fact. So the
UA is the only agent that can know what to do.

DB: I think support is required, but not information about what accesskeys 
will work.

CMN: I would say that the opposite is true: doesn't matter whether there's 
support. But if there is support, the UA needs to tell the author.

DB: It's the author's responsibility to say "I proved Alt-J".

CMN: No, since in windows it will be "Alt-J", in Mac "Apple-J", etc. The 
author doesn't know how the support will take place.

JG: Propose two separate checkpoints for current config (one for 
UA-supplied, one for Author/Other-supplied)?

DB: Add one for author-supplied as a Priority 3?

RS: I think a split is a great idea. Dropping priority for author-supplied 
info (notably since accesskey is broken). Also, there are so many issues about
scripting that the PF WG should be focusing on that.

Action DB: Propose split checkpoints about configuration.

Action CMN: Send info about MS Word provides this information to users.

Action CMN: Send techniques for how to provide author info.

Resolved: 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8 ok. ------------
Issue 108: Proposed checkpoint for table summary information

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0092.html

HB: I think this should be a checkpoint.

JG: I think we should take out "selected table".

GR: I agree with Harvey. Think this is a UA responsibility.

To be continued at next week's call.

/* 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
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, 27 October 1999 17:10:04 GMT

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