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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 22 December 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:10:28 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.19991222150935.00caf5a0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman 
Kitch Barnicle
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Mickey Quezner
Madeleine Rothberg
Judy Brewer

Regrets: 



Action Items

Completed Action Items

   1.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add
functional limitation 
     Status: Cancelled due to CG decision and UA telecon discussion 
   2.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques
document
     Status: Done 
   3.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. 
     Status: Done 
   4.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
     Status: Done, see announcements 
   5.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is
important for users with impairments. 
   6.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0573.html 
   7.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.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0738.html 
   8.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to
the list. 
   9.Status: Done (refer to WCAG/UAGL thread) 
  10.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to
the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their
     definitions
     Status: Dropped 
  11.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. 
     Status: Handed to IJ. Action IJ to carry this forward. 
  12.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0464.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: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1 
   7.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow
documentation as an option 
   8.IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list 
   9.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content 
  10.IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark,
Mark Novak (cc the list). 
  11.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9 
  12.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints. 
  13.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, ...) 
  14.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 
  15.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. 
  16.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation 
  17.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
  18.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
  19.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
  20.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Update impact matrix based on 20 November draft (from KB) 
   2.IJ: Include language in "applicability" about portions of checkpoints
related to resolution of Issue LC#138 
   3.IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting
related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any) 
   4.IJ: Verify that "synchronized alternative" not used elsewhere in
techniques. 
   5.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration 
   6.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 
   7.GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works. 



Minutes

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 
Status: Pending. 

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

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

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

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

6.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add
functional limitation 
Status: Cancelled due to CG decision. 

7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1 
Status: Pending. 

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

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

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

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

12.IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark,
Mark Novak (cc the list). 
Status: Pending. 

13.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9 
Status: Pending. 

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. 
Status: 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 
Status: Done, confirmed for 5 and 12 Jan. 

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

17.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 
Status: Done 

18.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. 
Status: 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, ...) 
Status: Not done. 

20.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 
Status: 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. 
Status: done 

22.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to the
list. 
Status: 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 
Status: 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. 
Status: Pending. 

25.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation 
Status: Pending. 

26.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending 
Status: KB: Handed to IJ. Action IJ to carry this forward. 

27.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
Status: Pending. 

28.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
Status: Pending. 

29.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list 
Status: Done. 

30.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
Status: Pending 

MQ: Mark is in Europe... 

31.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 
Status: 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 

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. 

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. 

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. 



Copyright  ©  1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements. 


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, 22 December 1999 16:12:37 GMT

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