- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:47:07 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
22 December 1999
Participants:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
David Poehlman
Dick Brown
Gregory Rosmaita
Kitch Barnicle
Mickey Quezner
Madeleine Rothberg
Judy Brewer
NEXT MEETING: 5 January.
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0723.html
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
bpositioning control in multi-media
4.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no
authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
Pending.
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
Cancelled due to CG decision.
7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
8.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to
allow
documentation as an option
Pending.
9.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques
document
Done.
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.IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David
Clark,
Mark Novak (cc the list).
13.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
14.JG: Contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marja, 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.
Done.
15.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
Done: Confirmed for 5 and 12 Jan.
16.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is
important for users with impairments.
Done.
17.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
Done.
18.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints.
No news. DB will review himself.
19.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, ...)
Not done.
20.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
Not done.
21.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.
JG will send DP's comments to the list.
22.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives"
to
the list.
Done (refer to WCAG/UAGL thread)
23.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional
to
the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions
Dropped.
24.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.
Pending.
25.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
Pending.
26.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending
KB: Handed to IJ. Action IJ to carry this forward.
27.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
Pending.
28.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
Pending.
29.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the
list
Done.
30.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
MQ: Mark is in Europe...
31.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission.
No news.
Announcements
1.Web Content is rechartering
2.New telecon weekly day and time for working group start on 6
January 2000
Thursdays, 2-3:30pm (EST, USA), on Longfellow Bridge
(+1-617-252-1038)
3.Additional telecons to clear last call issues:
Wednesday, 5 January 2000, 12:00-1:30 EST USA, Longfellow Bridge
(+1-617-252-1038)
Wednesday, 12 January 2000, 12:00-1:30 EST USA, Longfellow Bridge
(+1-617-252-1038)
Discussion
AGENDA 1.Candidate recommendation
Refer to W3C Process Document description of Candidate Recommendation
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR
JG:
a) Show existing implementations of requirements
b) For that which is not done yet (e.g., DOM for communication
of content), need to demonstrate feasibility
and value over current techniques.
AND/OR
c) Get commitments from AT developers that they will
adopt these solutions.
JB: I recommend that the WG try to accomplish these goals
in 3-4 weeks. Keep up momentum. Try to move to Recommendation
as early as possible.
KB: I think CR is a good idea. Extra work now, but more convincing
to developers.
DP: What does CR add to the spec in terms of deliverables?
IJ: Definitely a deliverable. For example, collate existing
reviews to show Director what is already implemented. All
reports will strengthen our case with the Director.
JB:
a) Talked with Director who supported time frame I proposed.
b) Refer to process document for specific requirements of
what the Director expects at each request.
MR: Sounds to me that we need to do an implementation report.
If almost all are done, we can claim to be ready.
JR: You may find some documented experience even for the DOM.
MQ: PWWebSpeak doesn't rely on IE DOM.
DP: But JFW might. I know Glen Gordon has spoken to that issue
a number of times.
Action JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report.
A look at a potential schedule:
14 January to C.R.
11 February end C.R.
18 February start P.R.
17 March end P.R.
?? April Rec.
DB: From conversations with the IE Team, I think there will be
DOM support. But I don't know
KB: What is the role of ATs in this implementation report
if the GL are for general-purpose browsers.
GR: Need to show:
a) Browsers are implementing the DOM
b) We were correct in judging that ATs could use the DOM.
E.g., what would read-only imply for ATs? (completion of
forms, e.g.)
JB: Probably want to ensure that Opera, media player developers,
etc. involved in discussions of DOM during CR.
GR: I'm a beta-tester of Opera 4. We have been claiming that
you satisfy a lot of requirements by implementing
CSS1 and CSS2. It would be good to use CR period to verify
this.
GR: Also, use CR period to verify that other user agents besides
desktop browsers can use the guidelines.
DP: How does CR get formally announced.
JB: This is new, but:
a) Announce to W3C Advisory Committee
b) Announce to WAI IG
c) Announce by UAGL to targeted community
d) Probably no press release.
GR: (About HAL): I am under the impression that the HAL
people want some kind of assurance that the solutions
will work before they commit resources.
Action IJ: Verify that "synchronized alternative"
not used elsewhere in techniques.
Action MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for
January.
Action GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with
Productivity Works.
AGENDA 2.LC#138: "Synchronized equivalent" v. "Continuous Equivalent"/
Proposed
split of 2.5
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#138
IJ: How does "applicability" apply to parts of a checkpoint?
Should we split the checkpoint into smaller pieces (which
Eric's proposal suggests)? Propose "the requirement" doesn't
apply instead of "checkpoint"?
MR: Or "portion of the checkpoint".
MR: New pieces from Eric:
a) Synthesizing auditory descriptions from text.
b) Collated text transcript (excellent idea!).
You can mix captions and text equivalents of auditory
descriptions in a single file and include time codes.
But this hasn't been specified yet in a W3C Recommendation.
How do we deal with technologies that don't exist yet?
JG: Need to move to PF for technologies that don't exist yet.
MR: I thought the issues that needed to be discussed were:
a) How to rewrite UA checkpoint to make WCAG and UAGL fit.
MR: "captions" and "auditory descriptions" are all we have
today. May want to generalize.
JG: Or, update the Guidelines when the technology exists.
Resolved:
- Applicability clause covers us for combined checkpoints.
Action Ian: Include language in "applicability"
about portions of checkpoints.
- Leave 2.6 as is as of 20 December draft since these
are known technologies. May add note to techniques
about future technologies.
- Consider EH's proposals as techniques (desirable combinations).
Action IJ: Follow up on EH's email with some comments from this
meeting.
AGENDA 3.LC#145: Why is 3.7 Pri 1 and 3.10 Pri 3? (Re: blinking and
flashing)
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#145
IJ: I think the current 3.9 is better wording for what 3.7 is
saying. Turning off scripts is a technique for stopping
content changes.
GR: I don't like the idea of the merge.
MR: Leave scripts as its own requirement since you don't know
what ugly things they may do.
KB: Rationale for 3.9:
a) Timing issue for reading content.
Resolved: 3.7 (scripts on/off) Priority 1 to account
for ugly behavior that the user agent can't detect.
Action IJ: Repropose 3.9 as a priority 1.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 1999 13:47:24 UTC