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

Raw minutes from 10 November 1999 UAGL Teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:33:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3829BA6C.D68C766@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAGL Teleconf
10 November 1999

Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (scribe)
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory Rosmaita
David Poehlman
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
Jim Allan
Madeleine Rothberg
Dick Brown
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mickey Quezner

Mark Novak
Al Gilman

NOTE: Sign up for UAGL Austin Face-to-Face:
17 November deadline for hotel reservations (refer to [0]).
25 November deadline for meeting registration [0]
  [0] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ua-agenda

Agenda [1]

1) Action Item review

   1.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered 
    Status: Not Done. But did put a note in the last call guidelines.

   2.IJ: Send revision of table checkpoint to the list AND include in
         call document
     Done: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105 

   3.IJ: Mark relative priority of Checkpoint 6.1 as a current issue for
         the group and we want last call comments
     Done: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105 

   4.IJ: Prepare guidelines document for last call, based on todays
     Done: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105 

   5.IJ: Prepare techniques document for last call, based on current
         unprocessed techniques submissions
     Done: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-TECHS-19991105/ 

   6.IJ: Make 9 and 10 December F2F meeting at IBM in Austin, TX
         information available
     Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ua-agenda 

   7.HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested
         reviewing the document during last call 
     JG: No info from HR. Status: Dropped for HR.
     GR: I've contacted some people.

   8.TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October
         structure (wait for next draft). 
     IJ: I'll follow up at MS next week.

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

  10.MN: Suggest a last call reviewer at Apple computer 
     JG: MN has not reply yet from UCP or Apple.

  11.MR: Working on SMIL techniques 

  12.DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last
         draft when available   
   Pending: Contacted Ian McDowell, no reply yet.

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

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

2) AOL/NFB Lawsuit

   JG: I called Curtis Chong (of NFB) to review UAGL. I sent a generic
       email to AOL pointing them to the document. 

   JG: I was contacted by NFB lawyers yesterday.

   IJ: Please don't speak as reps of W3C; instead forward any requests
       to W3C Comm Team. You should write to w3t-pr@w3.org and address
       Janet Daly and Ian Jacobs.

   Action Ian: If W3C Comm Team develops a statement, keep the UAGL WG

3) Exceptional teleconf proposed for Tuesday 7 December. 

   Regrets: HB (XML Conference), KB, CMN (down under).

   IJ: It seems as though Tobin bridge open from 12-1pm ET.
   Action JG: Confirm this date with systems people

4) Additional last call reviewers

   JB: Just send them the URL in the invitation to review and
       cc Jon or Ian.

5) WCAG is beginning rechartering process. Attend those teleconfs
   and send comments if you wish.

6) Techniques Document review.

   DEADLINE FOR TECHNIQUES: 17 November (preferable 15 November).

   IJ: If you come upon an issue during a review, please send
   issues to the list in individual emails (not as part of a larger
   techniques document).

   IJ: Please send *specific* techniques. My apologies for
       current language/inconsistencies/unreadability.

   1.1: Be more specific to mouse and keyboard.

   IJ: Problems?

     HB: Some table questions not yet resolved.

   JG: Propose that if an accessible API is not available, then
       implement one.

   IJ: I don't think we should require them to implement additional

   MR: It sounds like some devices don't have keyboard API.

   IJ: Requirement to use keyboard API in systems where it's standard.

   KB: Does this have to be a checkpoint? Or can it be a technique?

   GR: I can see the utility of such a checkpoint. But at this point
       in the process, I don't know whether we know enough to make
       its own checkpoint.

   KB: So would the checkpoint say "Whatever device you're using, 
       provide an accessible way to access it." 

   IJ: I think hardware requirements are out of scope. We haven't
       discussed "devices" before, only software.

   DP: Some systems that have only a user agent (i.e., not a UA on
       top of an operating system).

   Action KB: Post information about Easy Access/Infrared 
              technology to list.

   Technique expansions:
      Jim Allan: Propose CSS Techniques
                 (section 3.1 and individual checkpoints, notably
                  of G3 and G4.)
      Rich Schwerdtfeger: G1
      DP, GR: G11, Form Techniques (3.5)

      JA, IJ: Review Madeleine's techniques (for G2).
      JA: A lot of MR's techniques fall into Guideline on control
          of style.
      DB: G5
      CMN: G9, Script Techniques (3.6)
      KB: G7
      JG: G8, G2
      HB: Continue on tables 3.3
      MQ: G10
      IJ: Links (3.2) All of them...

   IJ: Goal:
     a) Have a technique for each checkpoint.
     b) Ensure that every checkpoint implemented in some browser.

   Action RS: Send last call document to IBM's Web Team in Austin.

   JG: Any documented accessibility features of SAMI?
   Action DB: Contact Dave Bolnick about SAMI access.
   Note: IJ and CMN will be at MS next week to discuss Guidelines
         with IE Team.

   JG: Add a new topic: Extensibility of user agent UI.
       (add menu items, add code, etc.)
   GR: Is this using visual basic? 
   JG: Not necessarily. You can add menu items and code.
   RS: You can add chrome around browsing window. You can embed
       the browsing component in a separate application.
   JG: You can add items to the registry.
   IJ: Seems to me to be covered by the configuration Guideline.
   RS: We haven't discussed embedding browser into other applications
       (e.g., specific look and feel for a particular disability).

7) On checkpoint 10.2 
   DB: Would prefer P3, but can live with P2. 
   Still waiting for review.

8) RS: "Implement" or "Support" HTML 4.0?
   IJ: "Support" for things without specs.
       "Implement" for things with specs.

9) No last call comments have come in yet!

10) Bryan Campbell's concern about deletion of keyboard Guideline.

   JG: We'll have this on our list of last call issues.
   JG: Will discuss further at face-to-face based on other input
       as well.
   GR: I've talked to Bryan a little off-line to reassure him.
       GR supports keyboard, but felt it was logically inconsistent
       to push for device independence while emphasizing keyboard. 
       Pointed Bryan to initial proposal and asked to review last call
       draft to see if his concerns were addressed.

11) Impact matrix

   Action KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft.

12) Current appendix for dependent UA functionalities

   IJ: Does anyone have any objections?
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 1999 13:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC