W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Raw minutes from 6 April 2000 teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:43:19 -0400
Message-ID: <38ECE8D7.564603BF@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
6 Apr 2000

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Kitch Barnicle
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Dick Brown
 Denis Anson
 Tim Lacy
 Jim Allan
 David Poehlman
 Mickey Quenzer
 Harvey Bingham
 Mark Novak

Next teleconference:      13 April
Next face-to-face:        10-11 April

Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0024.html

1) Announcements 

   1. FTF for Evaluation and Repair Tools working group in Amsterdam
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2000/05/agenda 

   2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information
Technology
     Accessibility Standards by the United States 
     ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
     Comments will be accepted until May 30th
     http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm
     http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/overview.htm 

     JG: If you have comments, consider drafting comments or
         coordinate with the W3C Team.

2) Review of Action items

   1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for
         developers. (No deadline.) 

   Status: Not done.

   2.CMN: Send a proposal to the list related to a note for 
          Checkpoint 2.1 clarifying UI verses API access 
     
   Done.

   3.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 

   Status: Not done.

   4.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 

   TL: I haven't looked at them lately. I'll try to review before
       the meeting.

   5.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11 

   Status: Have read through them, will send comments to the list.

   6.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 

   Status: Will send editorial comments to the list

   7.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio 
         examples in the techniques document. 

   Status: Looking for software that works. I've made
           some requests for leads but haven't found
           anything yet. I may try to work on something
           in Princeton.

   HB: Get samples of digital talking book work at Princeton.

   8.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 

     Status: Not done.

   9.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 

     Status: Not done. I have a hard time finding things.

3) Proposed Rec update.

  IJ: Still getting reviews. No substantial comments yet.

4) Face-to-face meeting information.
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/ua-meeting-rfbd.html

  JG: 10 people have registered.

  JG: We'll have a bridge for the meeting. Tim, Mark, Denis,
      Jim Allan have requested a telephone connection. 

  KB: I'll sit in with Mark.

  DP: I want to call as well.

  IJ: That means the entire bridge will be full. There are
      only six slots and the WG will need one.

  IJ: The bridge will be available from 10am ET to 5pm ET Monday and
     for the whole meeting on Tuesday. The number to call 
      (the "Mystic" bridge) is +1-617-252-1859.

  /* Discussion of speaker quality */

  DB: If there's a problem, Microsoft will be willing to
      rent necessary equipment.

  JG: Agenda items?

  IJ: From the PR, one comment - people want us to 
      track support for the Guidelines. Furthermore, the
      WCAG WG would like the UA WG to take over support
      for the UA Support page.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support

  JG: Also, talk about long-term schedule, confs and meetings
      we might attend/hold.

      Other ideas:
       - Specialized guidelines for assistive technologies.

  JG: Please send agenda items to the list.

  DA: When you talk about conformance guidelines for AT, there's
      a group hosted in part by the US Census bureau working
      on a standard interface for ATs. 

  GR: There was a guy from the US Census at the WAI IG meeting.

  Action DA: Look for name of this organization and send to list.

  IJ: Our charter expires at the end of April.

  /* IJ explains charter renewal process */

  IJ: Send charter ideas to the list. (Consider this
      a call for charter ideas.)

  IJ: Development of a requirements document. Look at
      what WCAG is doing for its requirements document.

  JG: So I've got:

       - rechartering
       - at guidelines
       - improved techniques document
       - reqs document
       - education and outreach
       - future meetings
  
5) New info for implementation report?

  DA: I'll try for Mac.

  GR: I intend to go through the checkpoints with 
      Netscape 6. I've already sent problems to the
      list about installation:
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0036.html

  GR: I don't think that I will have a full review done
      before WWW9. 

  DP: Please note that this is a pre-release.

  IJ: The implementation report is not urgent to go to REC. We
      should keep it up to date, but not urgent to do so now.

6) Issue PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207 

  Refer to Ian's proposal:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0550.html

  IJ: JG has made a point that making regular content available is
      not an accessibility issue: everyone suffers, not just users
      with disabilities.

  IJ: So: all alternatives that can be recognized by the UA must
      be available through the UI.

  DA: If you render content natively, you must render it accessibly.

  TL: Another problem with source view: for large documents, doesn't
      show you all content.

  JG: The critical piece of 2.1 is that alt equivalents be available
      through the UI. I don't think anything else would be lost.

Resolved:
  - Add a note to 2.1 that a source view, while useful, does not
    meet the requirements of 2.1. 

  - It does not satisfy 8.6 ("outline view") either. In fact, the
    outline view is supposed to reduce signal-to-noise ratio, which
    is increased by a source view.


  (Ian reminds himself for the record 
   that the content/ui division in G1 needs
   to be fixed. Action Ian: Fix this.)

Topic : Definition of content.

   IJ: "Source view" is for viewing the document source.
        I think that we need a definition of "document source".
       (Refer to Note at W3C for Note about Terminology
        for the Web: the source is what you get as a result of
        a request). It's what the client gets.

   IJ: In DOM1, content generated by style sheets not in tree.
      This may change in DOM 3.

   JG: MS's implementation of the DOM today gives this information...

   TL: It's even more complicated than source/dom/rendered: you have
       server-side scripts that may or may not have an effect on the
       source.

   TL: What comes down the wire is "the source".
   
  Proposed:
     - Define these erms:
         * Document Source
         * Document Object
         * Rendered Content
         * What is content?

  Action IJ: Propose three terms to the list.

Topic : Scope of 2.1.     
  
  IJ: How do you know something is an alternative equivalent?
      What is lost if the scope is reduced to equivalent
      alternatives? I haven't been able to come up with 
      anything other than "content" (primary or
      alternative).

  GR: In ATAG, we talked about "Content" (big "C") v. "content"
      (small "c").

  IJ: If you define "content" to be what's meant for humans,
      then checkpoint 2.1 stays the same: it's what's meant
      for humans (primary or alternative content).

  CMN: I don't like this. At the meeting, I thought we decided
      we would not require that everything that is human readable
      be available through the UI. 

   IJ: Why is this an accessibility issue? If the information is
      not meant for anyone, why does it need to be available for
      accessibility?

   GR: It's an authoring issue.

   IJ: How do you know what will be useful to users if it's
       not specified as being useful to humans? E.g., some
       URIs may be useful and others not, but you're not
       supposed to rely on the text of a URI to get information...

   JG: How many people think that what CMN is talking about was
       intended by 2.1 as written in the Proposed Rec? (Source
       information is important, not just content meant to be
       rendered, since it could provide access).

  CMN: Three weeks ago the WG rejected the idea of making explicit
       what needed to be rendered through the UI.

   JG: I don't think the WG understood the implications of 2.1
       when it was discussed. When Phill asked about a source view,
       I woke up because I didn't think that 2.1 was about 
       document source.

  CMN: I have no disagreement that alt content needs to be
       available through the UI and that for that content, the
       source view was not satisfactory.

  CMN: The only content that must be available through the 
       user interface is what is meant for humans.

 IJ: Summary of what I've understood:

   - Consensus that all information meant for humans
     be available through the UI.
   - Current 2.1 does not require that.
   - CMN considers that information meant for machines
     can make information more accessible.
   - UA Guidelines does not require a source view.

 JG: Do people think we need a checkpoint that states that
     alternative content must be available through the UI?

 Consensus: It must be available.

 IJ: I just want to note that the above consensus may cause
     a change to the spec.

 DP: If you don't render audio but there is an equivalent,
     you need to render it.
 
 JG: If you don't do it for anyone, do you have to
    do it for users with a disability?

 IJ, GR, DP: Yes. 


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 15:43:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT