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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 3 November 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:07:09 -0600
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991103145621.00bf2b80@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Kitch Barnicle
Mark Novak
Dick Brown
Jim Allan
Harvey Bingham
Al Gilman
Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets:
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Charles McCathieNevile


Action Items

Completed Action Items

    1.IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-TECHS-19991029/

    2.IJ: Update proposal for checkpoint 1.1 based todays discussion
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991029/

    3.IJ: Add Note on proposed checkpoint 1.2 that it is a specialization 
of proposed checkpoint 1.1
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991029/

    4.IJ: Add an example of standard output to 1.3.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991029/
      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
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991029/

    6.IJ: Moved proposed Checkpoint 11.1 to Guideline 12 on documentation 
and make changes based on todays discussion
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991029/

    7.IJ: Contact RealNetworks to agree to review last call draft when 
available
      Status: done

    8.JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism 
for last call comments
      Status: Done

    9.JG: Contact HR on Eurpoean reviewers
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0216.html

   10.JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism 
for last call comments
      Status: Done

   11.JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive 
technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document 
during last call
      Status: Sent proposal to send last call to all ATIA members

   12.MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard 
navigation discussion at F2F meeting
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0173.html

   13.MN: Repropose wording for Ian's proposed Checkpoint 1.5
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0201.html

   14.GR: Send techniques for how to provide author info.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0184.html

   15.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows
      Status: comments are part of 29 October draft

   16.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: comments are part of 29 October draft

   17.CMN: Send info about MS Word provides this information to users
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0178.html

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

   19.DB: Propose split checkpoints about configuration
      Status: split on this call for highlighting the issue in last call

   20.HB: Contact Steve Anderson (of Dragon Systems) to agree to review 
last call draft when available.
      Status: Contacted , but no response

Continued Action Items

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

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

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

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

    5.MR: Working on SMIL techniques

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

    7.MQ: Find someone from WinAmp, SigTuna to agree to review last call 
draft when available
      Status: still looking

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Send revision of table checkpoint to the list AND include in last 
call document

    2.IJ: Mark relative priority of Checkpoint 6.1 as a current issue for 
the group and we want last call comments

    3.IJ: Prepare guidelines document for last call, based on todays 
discussion

    4.IJ: Prepare techniques document for last call, based on current 
unprocessed techniques submissions

    5.IJ: Make 9 and 10 December F2F meeting at IBM in Austin, TX 
information available

    6.AG: Send HTML discussion to list related to table markup

    7.MN: Find a reviewer at Apple computer

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0217.html

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) Face To Face meeting

Action Ian: Make meeting page available.



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, 3 November 1999 16:12:44 GMT

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