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

Raw minutes from 15 December UAGL meeting.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:46:12 -0500
Message-ID: <3857E1F4.C7693CE9@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

These raw minutes are the concatenation of minutes from Jim
Allan and Ian Jacobs.

 - Ian

WAI UAGL Teleconference
15 December 1999

Dick Brown-db
Jim Allan-ja
Jon Gunderson-jg
Micki Quenzer-mq
Rich Swerdfegger-rf
/* late */
Ian Jacobs-ij
Harvey Bingham-HB
Gregory Rosmaita-GR

Agenda [1]

NOTE: Jon will schedule extra teleconference scheduled for 5 January
      at 12pm ET
NOTE: Starting 6 January, teleconf times at 2:30 pm ET.

/* Jim Allan scribe */

Review Open Action Items

   1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2

   2.IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control
content even if it passes content off for rendering.

   3.IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental
positioning control in multi-media

   4.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no
body that validates claims of conformance

   5.IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to

   6.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and
functional limitation

   7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1

   8.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to
documentation as an option

   9.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques

  10.IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list

  11.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content

  12.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9

  13.JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December - done

  14.JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin -done

  15.JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to

  16.JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG -done

  17.JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional
CG for consideration in WAI definitions - done

  18.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is
important for users with impairments.

  19.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 - his are in, waiting on IE

  20.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints. -pending

  21.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to
Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry,
     show sounds, ...). -pending

  22.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages

  23.DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to
have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this
     will work with ATs.

  24.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives"

  25.JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list. -done

  26.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional
ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions

  27.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to
have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this
     will work with ATs.

  28.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation

  29.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending

  30.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)

  31.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)

  32.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the

  33.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 -pending

  34.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to


   1.Web Content is rechartering - announced - 2 stage process, 1.1
then work on major revision

   2.New telecon day and time for working group start on 6 January 2000
     Thursdays, 2-3:30pm (EST, USA), on Longfellow Bridge


   1.Candidate Recommendation Stage
     Are we obligated?
     Showing implementations to director and in techniques document?
jg: review-new stage of recommendation. Proposed Rec-Candidate
(implementation period-demonstrate that guidelines are
Rec. Our obligation-that our technical guidelines are usable by vendors,
show an example of each checkpoint in a browser or demonstration
Where no clear implementation get a vendor to make an example.

rs:will it push out timeline?

jg: should not puch out timeline. rs would be a good resource for DOM
demonstration, not asking for commitment. need examples of guideline
5....other comments

rs: want to become more involved in DOM working group

jg: look through techniques, and fill in blanks

mq: send information to reviewers about new process

jg: reviews might not know about new process

mq: feedback about status of document

 LC#137: Use of terms for disabilities, impairment -- add in agenda

jg: Denis Anson brought WHO def to f2f. jg brought to coordination
group...CG those defs are medical model, contemporary-more positive,
inclusive. Many disability groups do not like WHO def. CG recommends
standing def. in the current document. Comments....

mq: so we don't have to change anything. its all personal preference

jg: good for keeping in harmony with other documents, and Judy Brewer
balk. Issue closed. no decension in group.

  LC#138: "Synchronized equivalent" v. "Continuous Equivalent"/ Proposed
split of 2.5 add in agenda

jg: coordinate with AU - not addressed in their document. should not
may have a problem with web content. WCGL is not chartered hard to get
together. send proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal. Action
for Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson.

**Action JG contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson, Ian .send
proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal.

  2.LC#133: Priority of 10.1 compared to 10.3


rs: on 10-1 provide input to api
jg: Ian has action on API issue. lets focus on priority
jg: allowing user to change input bindings
mq: changing 10-1 priority
jg: priority ok
rs: priority ok
db: priorty ok

** resolved leave priorites as is

   3.LC#146: Review priorities of 4.16, 5.2, 8.3, 8.5, 10.3, 10.6


review 4.16
ja: how does this apply to gui browsers
jg: poll group all ok with P2

resolved: 4.16 P2
resolved 5.2 revised 2 times

</ Ian Joins />

   4.LC#155: Propose change of priorities for checkpoints 5.3 (r/w
10.3 (single key)


   5.LC#156: Propose change in priority of 5.6 (P1 -> P2)


   6.LC#158: Propose priority change (1 to 2) for checkpoint 4.1
(control of
font family)


   7.LC#159: Propose raise priority of 4.13 to Priority 1


   8.LC#161: Raise priority of 8.8 to P2 (highlighting and identifying


   9.LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2.


  10.LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere
with OS


  11.LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18


  12.LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint 8.7


  13.Other issues on the issues list

/* Ian becomes the scribe */

   For checkpoint 8.3: 

     * Some agreement that the outline view is a technique for 

       a) 8.5 in 6 December draft now Priority 3.
       b) Clarify that the view need not be active. 
          Clarify that this is a technique for 7.7

   For checkpoint 8.3 in 6 December draft:

     RS: A lot of non-disabled users don't have access to this

     IJ: Is it a lot extra effort to follow the link and then hit

     RS, DB: This is a usability issue. 

     JG: What are the implications to the UAs? Exposing the history
     list to the AT?

     MQ: I find visited links to be useless. The information I get
     sometimes is unreliable.

     DB: I don't if the history list is available programmatically. I
     it is.

     RS: I think so too.

     Resolved: Priority 3

   For checkpoint 10.3 in 6 December draft:

     Resolved: Priority 2 (same)

   For checkpoint 10.6 in 6 December draft:

     DB: Do OS profiles count?
     IJ: Yes.
     RS: What about hand-held devices?

     Resolved: Leave as P2 but clarify in the checkpoint
               text that this is for operating systems
               where it's possible to identify oneself
               as a specific user.

   4.LC#155: Propose change of priorities for checkpoints 5.3 (r/w
             access) and 10.3 (single key) 

   For 5.3, resolved per ftf decisions.

/* Gregory joined */
/* Harvey joined */
/* DB leaves */

   For 10.3

    IJ: Is it P1 to be able to trigger some functionalities
        (non-configurable) with a single key?

    RS: Does this include closing the application? 

    JG: That's the problem, you don't know what people want.
    RS: Single key could be hit multiple times. But this gets messy.

    GR: Proposed useful baseline for deciding what's necessary for
        single-key access: there are many single actions that
        you find on a menu bar. Perhaps start by saying "For all
        single actions enabled by the UI".

    IJ: In Word, for example, you can put buttons for each
        functionality on the tool bar.

    RS: You probably want to exclude author-defined access keys.
    GR: There's a difference between serial single-key strokes
        and modifier keys (two at once).

    JG: Doesn't seem to me to be impossible to active functionalities
        without single key.

    IJ: What does "single key" mean:
     a) Not two keys at once?
     b) Single action?

    RS: Real killer is requiring the user to hit several keys

      * Move first two sentences from 1.4 to note for 10.7
      * Add a note about single key access to 10.7
      * Add a cross-reference from 1.4 to 10.7

    Action Ian: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification 
        and David Clark, Mark Novak (cc the list).
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 1999 13:46:20 UTC

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