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

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

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:52:42 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b04b487ff310545@[128.104.23.196]>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
see 2 comments at MN below:

At 3:10 PM 12/22/99, Jon Gunderson wrote:

<snip>

>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, ...)

MN:  I sent some notes regarding ShowSounds and SoundSentry to the list
last week explaining some of this, what more would people like to know?



>  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.

MN:  Do the scripts/EXEs/DLLs we've been developing and are continuing to
develop
which, for example, get and expose information from the browser using DOM
assist in this process ?



>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.
Received on Thursday, 23 December 1999 11:50:04 GMT

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