- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 13:47:07 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAGL teleconf
3 November 1999
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
David Poehlman
Gregory Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Al Gilman
Mickey Quezner
Mark Novak
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle
Jim Allan
Regrets
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Marja Koivunen
Charles McCathieNevile
Agenda [1]
[1]
1) Review of action items:
IJ: Deliverance of conformance statement
Status : None done.
IJ: Review of last call by RealNetworks:
Status: Done.
MQ: Found possible contact at NullSoft (WinAmp)
JG: Last call annotation in issues list
Status: done.
JG: Contacted various people: Hans (no news), Wilson Craig,
Tim Lacy.
MN: Active element text:
Status: Done.
MN: Proposed 1.5 wording.
Status: Done.
Madeleine Rothberg: Still waiting for techniques.
Dick Brown: Proposal to split 10.1?
Status: For this call.
GR: Issues about spawned windows?
Status: Not done.
GR: 2.5 cascading order is subsumed by proposed restructuring and
I have techniques for it.
Status: Done.
GR: Providing author info:
Status: Done.
HB: Left message for Steve Anderson. No news.
JG: Sent email.
GR: I will look further into email for
Foteos Macrides (Lynx).
2) Announcements:
1) 21 people have confirmed that they will review the document
in last call. More people still pending.
IJ: Please note that these people will also be good sources for
press support at Recommendation time. Keep the list handy!
JB: Linked from our home page.
JG: Anyone know anyone at Apple?
ACTION MN: Find a contact.
MQ: DialPad is a Web app that allows you to call on the Internet.
It uses plug-ins and is Java/Web application.
3) Netscape keyboard support page posted.
JG: Include in techniques document in some form?
4) Confirmation that old Guideline 2 (Keyboard) was deleted.
Resolved: Ok.
5) Issue 108: Table summary information.
JG: Should this be for all user agents or in the section
on dependent user agents? E.g., graphical UA conforms by
presenting visual information, summary info, header info.
/* Several people felt it was a general requirement for user agents
*/
AG: Table content already covered by another checkpoint (2.1).
What's missing: 2.1 doesn't cover the *relationship* between the
cell and the header. The proximity must show through when rendered
to the user. You could include "association" in support for HTML.
I think the requirement in the area of this checkpoint could stand
to be clarified.
JG: Ensure that the user has access to relationships between
elements.
AG: Yes, then line by line explanation in the techniques document.
MQ: Tables are so important that it's worth saying it directly.
KB: Is there a way to point out that the proposed table summary
checkpoint is a special case of access to content?
AG: Content includes metadata.
DB: Are we asking the UA to give info about a table on demand?
AG: Yes. (e.g., context menu).
IJ: Should this checkpoint stand on its own as a specialization?
GR: Yes, specialization of 2.1.
IJ: Goals:
a) Capture goal of making table understandable.
b) Make applicable to user agents.
DB: Not sure if proposal is specific enough.
IJ:
a) Should we be explicit in 2.1 or elsewhere that relationship
information in general is important?
AG: To be clearer about what you need to do (orientation), you
need to capitalize on relationships in HTML. And this is
critical in the table area.
b) Tables:
IJ: Should we be vague (allowing binary verification, however)
and just rely on suggestions in techniques?
JG: Any objection to adding checkpoint as stated? It seems to
hold some info not in 2.1.
DB: Are we requiring the user agent to provide information that
has not been supplied by the author?
AG: The repair techniques are more costly to implement than
to implement HTML.
IJ: I agree with Dick that the requirement should be for
what is supplied by the author.
Resolved: Incorporate proposed table checkpoint (without
reference to "selected" table).
Action Ian: Send revision to the list AND include in document
(without necessarily rediscussing on the phone).
Action Al: Send HTML discussion to list.
6) Issue 111: Relative priority checkpoints.
Refer to proposal from CMN on relative priorities as done in AUGL.
JG: I think there are very few checkpoints in the current doc that
would require it. Also, 6.2 (implement W3C specs) is priority 2.
DB: I think consistency between guidelines is a good idea.
IJ: I support this proposal for the checkpoint in question.
DB: I realize that there's baggage in trying to explain relative
priorities.
GR: I see both sides of the issue, but I've had problems with the
sloughing off of problems to WCAG. Priorities in WCAG may be
disputed there as well.
JG: We can revisit this in last call. May reconsider at the end to
see if the issue actually arises.
DP: We can also provide direction in 6.2 to the effect of relative
priorities.
IJ: I can live with Priority 1 through last call, but I think
Charles' logic holds in our case.
JG: WCAG depends on some features of UA. So UA complying at level
one should allow those options to be available to them.
GR: WCAG is clearly transitional. There are many user agent
clauses. The user agent guidelines is more forward looking.
UA needs to encourage authors to use new features.
AG: It's proper for UAGL to assign something higher priority in
user interface than what WCAG assigns it.
IJ: I propose accepting Pri 1 for last call and raising as an issue
in last call.
Resolved: Leave as Priority 1 and indicate that it's an issue
in last call.
GR: When you send out last calls, please include a reference to the
issues list.
Action Ian: Include this in call for review.
7) Issue 109/110/105:
JG: Issue of whether user agent should be required to provide
information
about author-supplied configuration to the user.
DB: For UA-supplied, P1. For author-supplied, P3.
JG: Proposed: P3 checkpoint to provide info just about
author-specified bindings.
AG: It's important to know what will happen when you hit a key.
It's not uninteresting to know where it came from. It's also
interesting to know what's product default and what isn't.
DB: So does this mean that 10.1 (input config) will remain P1 and
will
include author-specified?
JG: Anything the UA can reasonably know about.
DB: I don't think that the author-supplied info is a P1.
IJ: For me, there's a minimum of making known that some behavior is
associated with a binding.
JG: So there is no consensus on 10.1 Priority. Possible candidate
for relative priorities.
JG: Does input configuration apply to other issues than bindings?
Can we solve the issue by adding a specific checkpoint to
address that particular concern?
GR: I still think that it's a two-part question w.r.t. accesskey:
- The specified key binding is not the only piece: the UA has
to decide how to support if. UA needs to tell user how to
invoke it. I don't think we should have a separate
checkpoint.
IJ: Where's the burden on the UA?
DB: Not a question of burden but of priority.
AG: Dick is saying it's not P1. Gregory is saying not P3.
I would split it as follows: If you do it, you must document it.
There's also a question about the priority of implementing.
KB: I can see some benefit to knowing what's author-specified
as opposed to global.
GR: Please review my proposed techniques that I sent to the list
(27 October).
Resolved:
1) Make 10.1 for UA-supplied configuration P1.
2) Add a checkpoint that's P2 for author-specified configuration.
3) Considering merging them. Should the priority of
making author-specified configuration be as high as user-agent
supplied?
8) Going to last call.
a) Resolved: Go to last call 5 November - 1 December
with open issues noted.
Two abstentions on decision to go to last call:
Gregory, Mark.
GR: I'm concerned that we've had enough time to work out
issues.
JG: I'm only aware of two issues that are still open.
DB: I'm not satisfied that I've gotten enough input
on this document from the IE group. That's a problem of the
MS Access group.
IJ: Note that Rich said ok to last call with current Techniques
Document.
IJ: Note that new level of document maturity (Candidate
Recommendation) is likely to be adopted by the Advisory
Committee during our last call.
Action Ian: Incorporate changes from this call.
Action Ian: Continue to add techniques.
b) Resolved: Structure of the 29 October Techniques Document ok.
9) FTF
Action Ian: Make meeting page available.
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 13:47:10 UTC