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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 15 December 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:42:17 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.19991215134130.00c8e220@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan/Ian Jacobs

Present:
Jim Allan 
Gregory J. Rosmaita (Joined at 12:15)
Mickey Quenzer 
Harvey Bingham (Joined at 12:15)
Dick Brown 
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: 
Charles McCathieNevile 



Action Items

Completed Action Items

   1.JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0666.html 
   2.JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin
     See announcements section 
   3.JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG 
     Status: Done 
   4.JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to
the CG for consideration in WAI definitions
     Status: Done 
   5.JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to
multi-media
     Status: Done 
   6.JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0679.html 

Continued Action Items 

   1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2 
   2.IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of
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
authoritative body that validates claims of conformance 
   5.IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list. 
   6.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add
functional limitation 
   7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1 
   8.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow
documentation as an option 
   9.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques
document 
  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.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is
important for users with impairments. 
  14.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 
  15.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints. 
  16.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use
in Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry,
     show sounds, ...) 
  17.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 
  18.DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to
not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will
     work with ATs. 
  19.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to
the list. 
  20.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to
the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions 
  21.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to
not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will
     work with ATs. 
  22.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation 
  23.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending 
  24.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
  25.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
  26.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list 
  27.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
  28.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 

New Action Items 

   1.JG: Contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson, Ian send proposal
related to multi-media terminology to AU and GL with history and
     proposal to reconcile any current or potential differences between
documents. 
   2.IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark,
Mark Novak (cc the list). 
   3.JG: I will request the bridge for 5 and 12 January at 12:00 EST for
extra conference calls to clear the issues list by early January 



Minutes

Chair note: The wrong telephone number was provided by the chair in the
announcement for the telecon and 6 members of the group called into the
announced phone number. Two people eventually called the number the group
was scheduled to be on. The chair apologizes to the working group for
providing the wrong information.

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0695.html 

NOTE: Jon will schedule extra teleconference scheduled for 5 January at
12pm ET 

NOTE: Starting 6 January, standard teleconference times will be at
2:00-3:30 pm ET. with a new number (617) 252-1038 

/* 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 of
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 authoritative
body that validates claims of conformance 

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

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

7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1 

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

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

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
multi-media 

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

17.JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the
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
Team-pending 

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 use
in 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 not
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" to the
list. 

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 to the
ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions 

27.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not
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 list 

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
inadvertent submission. 

Announcements

1.Web Content is rechartering - announced - 2 stage process, 1.1 version,
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 (+1-617-252-1038) 

Discussion

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 implementable)-Full Rec.
Our obligation-that our technical guidelines are usable by vendors, show an
example of each checkpoint in a browser or demonstration project. 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 using 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 would
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 have
dependencies. 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 item 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

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#133 

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

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#146 

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 */ 

/* Ian becomes the scribe */ 

For checkpoint 8.3: 

* Some agreement that the outline view is a technique for navigation. 

Resolved: 
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 information. 

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

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 suspect 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) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#155 

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 simultaneously. 

Resolved: 
* 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). 

Extra Telecon to Process Issues

Action JG: I will request the bridge for 5 and 12 January at 12:00 EST for
extra conference calls to clear the issues list by early January. 


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, 15 December 1999 14:44:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:35 GMT