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

Minutes from 1 December UAGL Teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:18:33 -0500
Message-ID: <38457489.F576DF90@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

Minutes available online [1]. Text version below. 
 - Ian 

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/wai-ua-telecon-19991201.html#minutes

MINUTES:

  Announcements

     * Next week at "Web for All" conference, Judy giving keynote,
Harvey
       discussing UAGL. Jutta is discussing Authoring Tools. Len Kasday
       is discussing ER work. Mark Hakkinen discussing electronic books.
       HB will post URI to conf to the list.
     * Telecon on Tuesday, December 7th at 12:00-1:30 EST to develop
       agenda for F2F meetingNote: different phone number: (617)
258-7910
     * No telecon on December 8th

  Review of action items.

    1. IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
       Not done.
    2. IJ: Bring table header algorithm problem to HTML and PF working
       groups. Done. Refer to [8]message to PF about headers.
    3. IJ: Publish new working draft of guidelines on 6 December
    4. IJ: Ian to work with Eric checkpoint related to dependency issues
       in WCAG (EH proposed checkpoint 6.1A)
       Done. As a result of the discussion, his issues 7-10 are dropped.
    5. IJ: Take "synchronized equivalent" to SYMM and PF working groups.
       Done. Refer to [9]message to PF about synchronized equivalent.
    6. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
    7. JG: Talk to Rich about setting up teleconf for F2f meeting
       Pending.
    8. JG: Send proposed weekly telecon day and time change to the list
       for comment
       Done.
       No objections here to new meeting time starting 6 January:
       Thursdays 1-2:30pm ET
    9. KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft.
       Pending
   10. RS: Send last call document to IBM's Web Team in Austin.
   11. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
   12. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 3 (Multi-media)
   13. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
   14. DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
       DB: Tim Lacy has one issue related to virtual machine. DB will
       have the message forwarded. Otherwise not problem.
       Action DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and
Pri
       1 checkpoints.
   15. DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last
       call draft when available
       DB: Contacted, no news back.
   16. CMN: Review techniques for topic 3.6
       Staus: Partially done,
      
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0394
       .html
   17. GR: Send example of using CSS pseudo element list numbering using
       content tag
       Done. (URI??)
   18. GR: Check if their is a css pseudo class for lang change in
       document
       Done. Refer to [11]GR comments on pseudo class for lang
   19. MRK: Send proposal for configuration options for checkpoint 2.2.3
       to the list, GR will help
       Done. [12]GR comments on pseudo class for lang
   20. MRK: to send SMIL examples to the list of problems related SMIL
       rendering of time-dependent links
       Done. Refer to[13] Marja comments on this

      [8]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0461.html
      [9]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0459.html
     [10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0394.html
     [11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0437.html
     [12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0437.html
     [13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0447.html

  Issues

  [14]Issue 121

     [14]
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#121

   IJ: Two reviewers felt that checkpoints should be organized according
   to developer tasks.

   DP: I saw a comment from Lake that developers need to have
information
   rapidly and according to needs of developer. Put the meat up front.
   Tim Lacy had made the same comment at the face-to-face.

   MQ: You have to know what the meat is. People's ideas differ, so
   you're back to square one.

   IJ: What about reorganization based on categories of developers
(e.g.,
   UI v. content).

   DP: If we reorganize, I like UI v. content.

   No resolution.

  [15]Issue 115

     [15]
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#115

   Checkpoint for text magnification/shrinking with maintenance of
   relative scaling?

   HB: I prefer NN's solution to IE's.

   DP: Don't we address this in the configuration checkpoint.

   DP: What happens today in NN and IE?

   HB: Netscape does scaling.

   MQ: IE 5 gives you a list box with five choices.

   DB: There's a button in the latest IE.

   DP: NN doesn't tell you when the end of decrease occurs. It doesn't
   cycle around.

   MK: You also want to be able to go to the default.

   MK, MQ: This sounds like a technique.

   JA: You can use the mouse + wheel to scroll sizes in IE 5.

   HB: There's another observation: we're magnifying without refolding.
   The IE approach scales and reformats. Scroll bars appear if
necessary.

   MQ: Do we want to "standardize" this?

   IJ: I would say at most checkpoint Pri 3.

   DP: For screen readers, it is useful to be able to shrink text size.

   MQ: What if a person has large print already?

   EH: When you normally increase the font size, you change text
   wrapping.

   HB: A screen magnifier doesn't wrap.

   EH: That's what I"m thinking about.

   No conclusion. Take to the list.

  [16]Issue 116 (Eric Hansen issues)

     [16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0409.html

   IJ: Issues 7-10 dropped based on Ian/EH telephone call.

   EH#11: Closed captions to captions.

   IJ: comments still coming in on that one.

   Re: "Braille" or "braille".

   IJ: We resolved last week "Braille".

   IJ: Haptic - comments still coming in.

   EH#16: "continuous equivalent track" v. "synchronized equivalent"

   MK: Depends on what you want to emphasize - time-dependency or
   synchronized

   EH: I even have concerns about "synchronized equivalents". I think it
   has some of the same problems or ambiguities. I don't think it's
   necessary since we already talk about the synchronizations that we
   want in the definition of caption, auditory description, and
   transcripts for audio clips. I think it suffices to name what we want
   rather than using an additional term.

   IJ: I think the abstraction is useful conceptually.

   MK: I think what we were emphasizing in the SMIL Access Note was
their
   time-dependency. You can synchronize discrete equivalents as well.

   EH: What does synchronization mean in the context of matching
discrete
   elements with its auditory equivalent? If you have a text box with a
   collated text transcript and a movie besides it, is that
   synchronization?

   MK: You can synchronize the beginning.

   EH: In the context of the present document, I don't see any reason to
   use the term "synchronized alternative" since we can identify what
   we're talking about.

   EH: WCAG 1.3 can be broken down into two simpler checkpoints with
   explicit reference to the elements (captions, auditory descriptions,
   etc) we're talking about.

   EH: In short: "synchronize" is part of the definition of the
   alternative, so not necessary to repeat it.

   MK: I like the idea of explicitly saying what is needed.

   EH: I think there needs to be some flexibility in time coordination
   between components that's nto implied in the current definition of
   "synchronization".

   MK: We need to explore what "synchronization" means in different
   situations.

   Action MK: Write some comments on synchronization to the list.

   IJ: Examination of checkpoint 2.5. Only one checkpoint where
   "continuous eq" occurs.

   Action EH: Propose new wording for 2.5

   EH Issue #18

   Proposed new checkpoint to meet [17]WCAG 1.3 demands for auditory
   descriptions.

     [17] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-provide-equivalents

   Refer to [18]Marja comments on this proposal.

     [18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0430.html

   MK: There is a problem - the text equivalent might not contain the
   time codes. These are needed so that the text equvalent is
   synchronized correctly with other audio. The author needs to put in
   the time codes. This is a lacuna of the Web Content 1.3.

   EH: I agree.

   GR: The requirement would be applicable for UAs that support speech.

   IJ: Need to amend "native" to include features of the operating
   system.

   Resolved: Amend "native" definition to include features provided by
   the operating system.

   DB: We're not requiring that UAs be able to recognize time codes.

   MK: If we want equivalent of time codes, we are. It would also be
   useful to be able to read the collated text transcript on its own.

   EH: The requirement of full synchronization with full transcript is
   not a Pri 1 requirement.

   IJ: I think there are so many prerequisites towards getting this
done,
   that the requirement is too watered-down.

   MQ: This sounds like something people choose to implement, but it
   doesn't sound like it's possible today.

   MK: One thing that is possible is that, if you have text-to-speech,
   you should be able to use it with the browser.

   DB: My problem here is that we're requiring something of all user
   agents.

   EH: One suggestion was for a provision more or less stating "When W3C
   produces a spec describing how to synchronize, then follow that
spec."
   Something has to be in UAGL that points to this WCAG requirement.

   IJ: This is covered by Guideline 6.

   IJ: I don't think 1.3 necessarily maps to a UAGL requirement. I think
   this is similar to "Implement tables."

   GR: I think we need to talk to PF. And get a more concrete proposal.
   This may be an issue that can't be resolved before PR.

   IJ: Why is this different than "implement lists"?

   EH: One difference is that there's an explicit requirement in WCAG. I
   think clarification is required in the WCAG WG (what are we talking
   about with "synchornized alternatives"). Then we need to follow
   through with other W3C Guidelines.

   Action EH: Refine proposal on the list.

   MQ: Get Windows media people to comment on this.

   [19]Issue 117
     _________________________________________________________________

     [19]
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#117

   [20]Copyright    1999 [21]W3C ([22]MIT, [23]INRIA, [24]Keio ), All
   Rights Reserved. W3C [25]liability, [26]trademark, [27]document use
   and [28]software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this
   site are in accordance with our [29]public and [30]Member privacy
   statements.

     [20] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Copyright
     [21] http://www.w3.org/
     [22] http://www.lcs.mit.edu/
     [23] http://www.inria.fr/
     [24] http://www.keio.ac.jp/
     [25] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Legal
Disclaimer
     [26] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C
Trademarks
     [27] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
     [28] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
     [29]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Public
     [30]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Members
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 1999 14:19:02 UTC

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