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

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




     * Next week at "Web for All" conference, Judy giving keynote,
       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)
     * 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
    8. JG: Send proposed weekly telecon day and time change to the list
       for comment
       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.
   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
       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,
   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
       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



  [14]Issue 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
   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
   UI v. content).

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

   No resolution.

  [15]Issue 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

   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

   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)


   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

   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
   time-dependency. You can synchronize discrete equivalents as well.

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

   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

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

   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

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

   Refer to [18]Marja comments on this proposal.


   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

   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
   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

   EH: One suggestion was for a provision more or less stating "When W3C
   produces a spec describing how to synchronize, then follow that
   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


   [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

     [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
     [26] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C
     [27] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
     [28] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
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