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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent 6 April 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:16:33 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20000407161507.00b1b540@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Denis Anson
Mickey Quenzer
David Poehlman 
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Jim Allan
Kitch Barnicle
Tim Lacy
Charles McCathieNevile
Dick Brown
Harvey Bingham
Mark Novak


Action Items

Open Action Items

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

   2.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 

   3.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 

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

   5.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 

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

   7.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 

   8.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: The content/ui division in G1 needs to be fixed 

   2.Propose three terms to the list: Document Source, Document Object and
Rendered Content 

   3.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some
from the US Census Bureau 

Completed Action Items

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


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

2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards by the United States ARCHITECTURAL AND
May 30th

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
Status: Not done. 

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

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. Discussion

3) Proposed Rec update. 

IJ: Still getting reviews. No substantial comments yet. 

4) Face-to-face meeting information. 


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

JG: Agenda items? 

IJ: From the PR, one comment - people want us to track support for the

Furthermore, the WCAG WG would like the UA WG to take over support for the
UA Support page.

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 
- Assitive Technology 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: 

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 


Refer to Ian's proposal:

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")

DA: 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". 

- 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

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
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
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. J

G: 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

DP: If you don't render audio but there is an equivalent, you need to
render it.

JG: If you don't tell anbody there is audio available, do you have to
render an alternative equivalent for a user with a disability? 

IJ, GR, DP: Yes. 

Copyright    2000 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 Friday, 7 April 2000 17:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:26 UTC