- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:39:31 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, kerscher@montana.com
Hello all,
The minutes are available online ([1], [2]) and linked from the home
page. The Working
Group was able to make a pass through all of the issues, and to resolve
almost
all of them. I will update the issues list as soon as possible. I have
quoted the
minutes below in text. These are raw minutes and may be edited.
On behalf of the Working Group, I would like to thank George Kerscher
and RFB&D for hosting our meeting. Everything went very smoothly.
Thank you,
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/rfbd-20000410
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/rfbd-20000411
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Minutes from 10 April 2000 UA face-to-face at RFBD
Participants
* Jon Gunderson (Chair)
* Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
* Harvey Bingham
* Mickey Quenzer
* Gregory Rosmaita
* Charles McCathieNevile
* Hans Riesebos
* Rich Schwerdtfeger
* George Kerscher
* Eric Hansen
By phone:
* Jim Allan
* Kitch Barnicle
* Mark Novak
* Madeleine Rothberg
Agenda
Issue 208
Resolved:
1. This checkpoint was meant to allow configuration of prompting;
this is a clarification.
Action IJ: Propose wording to the list.
Issue 209
Resolved:
1. If document is not rendered when there is no style sheet, this is
not an accessibility issue.
2. The user agent should make available in an accessible manner the
fact that only the default style sheet is active, which may cause
no rendering.
Action IJ: Add to techniques.
Issue 210
Resolved:
1. Define author-specified to mean that the UA recognizes in markup.
Action IJ: Add to document.
Issue 211
Resolved: Add to checkpoint 2.5 that equivalent alternatives need to
be recognized.
Action IJ: Propose change to the list.
Issue 212
RS: We talked about different versions of the Guidelines in the
future.
HB: We want new technologies to come on board with where we are.
RS: We don't have a crystal ball to predict all the devices that are
coming out.
JG: We may want to attend conferences where new devices are presented
and discuss participation in WAI by those developers.
JG: One reason we did not expand the scope of the guidelines was that
some AT developers were not thrilled with the requirement for
interoperability/communication.
EH: Definitions seem tidy in PR version of guidelines, so we don't
need to say much more about what devices or not are "covered". What
more do we need to do?
RS: Why don't these guidelines cover more? E.g., could have a palm
device with the DOM.
CMN: I gave a talk in Japan. Mobile guys didn't understand why they
were concerned? It's still valuable to point people to these
guidelines, even if they don't apply entirely to your device.
RS: There is a need for more detailed guidelines for other devices. I
think we should say that these guidelines were designed primarily to
address desktop and other "heavy-weight" user agents and that we'll
try to address pervasive user agents in future work.
MQ: We don't want to discourage readers. Some of the guidelines apply
anyway.
EH: I think that we ought to use the terms already defined and say
that not every checkpoint is applicable to every user agent. And
leave
it at that. This means that some specialized user agents may have
only
6 applicable checkpoints, but they're still a user agent and should
satisfy them.
Resolved:
1. The Guidelines address applicability already. This means that we
recognize that some checkpoints don't apply to all user agents,
but many may apply to new user agents coming to market and we
want
these developers to consider how these checkpoints apply in their
devices.
2. The WG intentionally chose to limit the intended audience of user
agents in this version to graphical desktop user agents (e.g.,
graphical browsers, media players). In part, this was decided
because assistive technology developers were concerned by the
requirements for communication with other user agents. The WG
chose to address general purpose graphical user agents instead of
specialized user agents because the latter generally address
their
target audience well and are not intended to be universally
accessible.
3. The WG is developing a new charter and plans to address how
future
versions of the Guidelines may apply more specifically to
assistive technologies, mobile devices.
4. Rapid evolution of these devices makes it difficult today to
provide them with more guidance than we already do.
Action HB:
1. Ensure that the EO considers this question for the FAQ: Which
user
agents are covered by these Guidelines? Mention that the WG will
consider other classes of user agents in future work and will
seek
participation by developers.
Issue 213
MQ: It's a problem that applications don't know about each others hot
keys.
CMN: We can't solve that, but we can say don't make it worse.
Resolved:
1. Change "language features" to "markup language features".
Clarification.
2. Add examples to end of paragraph before note what readers will
find in UI style guidelines.
Issue 214
RS: You can't get at image map information for server-side image maps
since it's on the server.
CMN: You could get at the information on the server by flooding the
server. If we don't say "client-side" then we are requiring flooding.
MQ: We don't support server-side image maps. I don't quite understand
the reason.
RS: Server-side image maps are based on a pointing device.
CMN: The other alternative is to expose the image map and ask users
to
name points. And you've met the requirement.
Resolved: Leave it as is.
Issue 215
Resolved: Say that the button should have a text equivalent (adopt
the
proposal).
Issue 216
CMN: It's just an example.
Resolved: Add "For example" at the beginning of the sentence.
Issue 217
CMN: Yes, this is an alternative equivalent.
MQ: I think we're covered.
HR: A location equivalent would mean something like "these controls
are close together and that means that they're related". The sounds
are not equivalent alternatives if they don't provide that
information. Three-d sound does exist...
IJ: This grouping should be addressed by authors with markup (e.g.,
FIELDSET, OPTGROUP). We are covered by structured navigation.
CMN: My interpretation of the question was that it was about "where
am
I right now?"
RS: ATs provide "where am I" functionality.
Resolved: No change.
1. The author should not rely on graphical rendering to convey
semantics. When markup is provided, the UA should follow the
spec.
2. "Where am I" functionalities are offered by ATs.
Issue 218
Resolved:
1. Move and edit the sentence to 3.1 Note.
Issue 219
Resolved:
1. Adopt proposed editorial change.
Issue 220
EH: I think that the expression "respect sync cues" is nice, more
general. Some times tighter or looser synchronization.
KB: There may be times when people want to view them at different
rates, and this doesn't exclude that.
HR: Not all media can be slowed down to the same rate.
Resolved:
1. No change. Add a cross reference to 2.6
2. In 2.6, change to author-specified.
Issue 221
RS: Recall that if the OS feature is used, it must be accessible.
CMN: The time when you need controls is not the gross volume, it's
the
mixing volume. You'll need the UA to provide easy access to that
(which typically will be by punting to the OS).
Resolved:
1. This is covered by definition of native support.
Action IJ: Add note to Techniques.
Issue 222
Resolved:
1. This is covered by definition of native support.
Action IJ: Add note to Techniques.
Issue 223
IJ: "Changes" is generic. Not clear what is required.
RS: I don't think we intended to allow the user to configure keyboard
focus changes.
GR: There's the issue of how ATs pick up focus on new windows.
Resolved:
1. Allow the user to configure how the focus moves when there are
multiple viewports.
Action IJ: Tailor this wording and propose to list.
Issue 224
HB: Include notification that another viewport has opened.
JG: The two main things have been focus changes and programmatic
notification (covered elsewhere). Also, that user configurations are
inherited by new viewport instances.
JA: I think that the minimum is what 5.7 says (notification).
CMN: I think that the minimum requirement relates to "configuration":
The minimum requirement is to configure those things specified by the
document. And perhaps that turning off is part of the minimum
requirement. Point people to the definition of configure.
EH: We can add examples to the checkpoint. If you're relying on the
definition of "configure" and it has circularity with the
checkpoints,
that needs to be corrected.
EH: I don't think that our clarification means we need to state a
minimal requirement, but clarification is necessary.
The WG feels that this checkpoint includes:
* Notification (covered by 5.7)
* Prompting for opening or not, plus configuration of prompting
* Focus changes (covered by 4.15)
* Inheritance of configuration.
MN: These are listed in the techniques document.
RS: We shouldn't have dialogs prior to opening new viewports.
IJ: Recall that we used to allow turn on/off, but the SYMM WG said
this didn't work for SMIL presentations. Thus, configurability.
GR: I think that notification is key. Duplicate views should respect
focus position, otherwise might be disorienting.
IJ: I don't believe that we have a requirement for notification
through the UI when the focus changes viewports.
IJ:
1. I don't think having several viewports is an accessibility issue.
2. I don't think changes in number of viewports is an accessibility
issue if (1) there is notification programatically and through
the
UI and (2) the user can navigate to the new viewport and three
(3)
the user can configure how and when the focus changes.
RS: User agents today don't have a mechanism for programmatic
notification of change other than a focus change. DOM 3 has a notion
of views and we should address this in DOM 3.
Action RS: Take this to PF as a DOM 3 requirement.
IJ Proposed: The requirement is that the user be informed
(accessibly)
when a viewport is created or destroyed (that has not been created or
destroyed on request from the user). The same requirement should
apply
for the focus.
RS: Both of these requirements are covered inherently in the user
interface design. People with ATs get the information
programmatically, which we cover elsewhere (5.7).
MN: IE 4 notifies you programmatically when a new viewport has been
created.
KB: There are situations where the user may actually request
something
but they don't realize it. The user should be able to query how many
viewports are open.
Action GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.
EH: We may need a definition of window...
HB: There's a class of things we don't expect to cover (e.g., MS blue
screens).
RS: I think we are covered except those things that we have no
control
over. Do we want to limit to application-generated events and not all
system-generated events?
KB: If a Web page says "Following this link will open a new window",
is that considered an explicit user request?
CMN: I would have thought that was an explicit request, but that's
hard to find for the user agent. There can be something in markup
saying a new window will open. The UA should provide this type of
information.
Proposed: Delete 4.16.
Is inheritance of configuration in new windows a requirement?
Proposed: Add "inherit configurations in new viewports" to definition
of "configure".
JG: In G8, we have some checkpoints about links. We might want to
require that the user agent inform the user that following a link may
open a new window (recognized in markup).
RS: When you attach javascript, it may open a new window.
IJ: Note that UI notification of changes to prompts/windows not
covered in the guidelines. However, like changes to viewports, there
is notification programmatically and the assumption that users of the
primary interface will know.
RS: I think that it's implied that new viewports inherit features.
/* The WG will chew this over */
Issue 225
Resolved: This is covered by checkpoint 9.3
Issue 226
Resolved: This is editorial.
Action IJ: Clarify definitions of content, user interface (possibly
chrome), etc. Refer also to issue 207.
Issue 227
Resolved: Don't add "where available" since we have applicability
that
applies globally.
Issue 228
Resolved: No change. There's already a cross-reference to checkpoint
5.5, which talks about standard API.
Issue 229
CMN: There are a "bizillion" examples of accessibility settings in
earlier checkpoints.
Resolved: Editorial
Action IJ: Add a couple of examples (sticky keys, mouse keys, show
sounds).
/* Lunch 12:30 ET */
Issue 230
Does default keyboard configuration mean look at style guide
recommended key sequences for accelerators and things, Qwerty vs
Dvorak vs ?, both, or more? It should be clearer.
CMN: The answer is surely dependent on the system. If your system
doesn't care what keyboard you have, one set of guidelines. If
there's
a keypad, another.
RS: Default keyboard is some combination of what is specified by the
OS user interface and what the application specifies as its default
keyboard interface.
Resolved: Delete "default" from "default keyboard configuration". The
details of which keyboards are supported, etc. depend on the system.
Issue 231
IJ: The proposal seems to suggest another checkpoint requiring the
use
of accessible specifications.
Resolved:
1. Reverse sentences of Guideline subhead.
2. Add a note to G6 rationale that the scope is more than W3C specs.
3. Add a note to 6.1 as well to this effect.
4. Do not add a checkpoint requiring support for accessible
specifications. You can still provide accessibility even if you
don't.
5. Editorial: change "supported" to "implemented" (with
rewording...)
Action IJ: Add to techniques document Java (and point to Java
accessibility). SAMI?
Issue 232
IJ: Two issues:
1. Education
2. Scope (discussed in issue 212).
JG: Point the reviewer back to discussion about the multitude of
navigation checkpoints and how they got reduced: different display
control functionalities have their own place; we included those that
crossed boundaries into the guidelines themselves.
IJ: Refer to UA Responsibilities document for rationale.
EH: We can't predict every type of AT. We have extensive treatment of
applicability. We also have the impact matrix.
EH: I don't want to change the scope of the document.
GR: I think one of the main points of the comment is that it should
be
highlighted to AT developers what's expected of a "mainstream" UA.
It's bidirectional.
Resolved:
1. Since this document is meant for a certain class of UAs, we are
not concerned about the redundancy. The "line is drawn" by these
Guidelines.
Action IJ:
1. Editorial change: add explanation of how UAs and ATs interact.
And
or point to UA Responsibilities.
2. Editorial change: say to ATs that this is what they can expect
conforming UAs to do; if the mainstream browsers don't, then they
may pick up the slack.
3. Maybe add another statement about audience to the conformance
section.
GR: One of the biggest advantages for AT developers is the use of
standard interfaces (the DOM). A single navigation mechanism may be
used with different independent UAs.
RS: One complaint about HPR was that it didn't support Windows
navigation mechanisms. We will fix this; the market demands it and I
don't know whether we need to require ATs to support them. Just
because an AT implements these guidelines doesn't mean it's a
general-purpose user agent.
Issue 233
Proposed: Checkpoint 7.6: Change "structure" to "document object".
RS: If the UA provides programmatic access to the DOM, does this
suffice?
CMN: No. You may require access through the UI. The minimum
definition
of structural navigation in ATAG is "element by element". In many
cases, this will be painful, but it's clearly identifiable.
EH: Will switching to the term "document object" extend the scope?
(Or
narrow it?)
CMN: I don't think that the new term extends the scope. However, I
don't think that "document object" by itself provides the necessary
piece for a developer. (Ian notes that he has an action item to
include a definition.) What needs to be addressed is what nav
mechanisms are (minimally) required (e.g., up the tree, next sibling,
back, etc.). There are markup languages that don't have an inherent
tree language (e.g., Postscript). What navigation is required for
such
markup languages? You do cover the structure of a language like
Postscript by referring to "document object".
IJ: Note that we've already had a long discussion about the myriad
useful navigation techniques and resolved to have a single (open)
checkpoint since we could not come up with a minimal set.
JG: I'm concerned about saying what the minimal set of strucured
navigation techniques should be used. It depends on the content, how
its rendered, etc.
CMN: I would be very concerned about not specifying a minimum
conformance requirement for navigation mechanisms.
RS: You want to be able to navigate to all rendered content. You use
the DOM to traverse it in a logical sequence.
HR: I think that structural navigation has a purpose: get the
structure of the document without the details of the content. As long
as it meets this goal, sufficient.
EH: "Allow the user to navigate according to structure (e.g., forward
and backward through rendered elements)."
CMN: We're not talking about the W3C DOM per se; we're talking about
a
generic document model. I think HR is saying that this is a way of
getting around the document (in addition to the linear reading).
IJ: Speed/efficiency is the other advantage. Note that outline view
also gives you a vision of the structure.
GR: I like having open-endedness and configurability (chunk-by-chunk,
then lower detail).
IJ: The minimal requirement is access to every piece of the document
object.
RS: If you're navigating through the UI, it's only access to what's
rendered in the UI.
EH: You have different classes of object within the object model. One
piece of efficiency is the ability of navigate objects of the same
class (e.g., headings).
Proposed:
1. Change "structure" to document object.
2. Minimal requirement of navigation is access to every element of
the document object.
EH: Note that point two misses the point of efficiency, which was the
key to the checkpoint. This is the same as viewing the content
serially.
JG: Add a note that this checkpoint is designed to improve efficient
access.
IJ: What about a minimal requirement of "more than sequential access"
to the document object.
MN: "Document object" confuses me more than "structure". Also, there
are objects within the document, etc.
IJ: Propose adding point 3: Because this checkpoint is meant to make
access more efficient, user agents are expected to provide more than
minimal access. Point to techniques.
RS: Should we add the term "iterator"?
HR: I am in favor of both improved efficiency and local/global
inspection of the structure.
MN: I agree with HB - elements and attributes.
JA: I agree with points 1, 2, and 3 together.
Resolved (pending proposal from Ian on definition of content/document
object/user interface/element, etc.
1. Change "structure" to document object.
2. Minimal requirement of navigation is access to every element of
the document object.
3. Add a note that we expect more than minimal access (point to
techniques)
4. Make clear that this is not about the W3C DOM for all types of
content (it's about a "document object".
RS: Ensure that the user agent doesn't supply a different object
model
than the DOM for XML/HTML content.
Issue 234
Resolved: Editorial. Move to G9 (Checkpoint 9.4).
Issue 235
Resolved:
1. Add HTML examples to 8.1
2. In section 1.3 of document, explain that some checkpoints are
important special cases of others and have been included to
highlight particularly important requirements.
Issue 236
Resolved: Editorial. Add a cross-ref to G5.
Issue 237
CMN: I suggest we move the word "mobility" from the note.
MN: We usually talk about "built-in" accessibility features.
CMN: How about "default"?
Resolved: Editorial. Delete "mobility". Maybe add a required term to
glossary.
Issue 238
CMN: This is "applicability of available keys".
Resolved: Add a note that in some modes (e.g., text input mode), is
not required due to the nature of the mode.
Issue 239
Proposed: For example, on some operating systems, when developers
specify which command sequences will activate which functionalities,
standard user interface components display those bindings to the
user.
For example, if a functionality is available from a menu, the letter
of the activating key is underlined in the menu.
Resolved: Editorial. Adopt some form of above proposal.
Issue 240
Resolved: Editorial. Don't feel it's necessary to add.
Issue 241
IJ: Relates to issue 207. Does a structured view suffice for some
types of content? Previous discussions about 207 suggest that the WG
feels that a source view does not suffice for content that may be
rendered through the UI (it's too hard to navigate the entire
structure to get at the "title" attribute).
Resolved: This is resolved according to the outcome of issue 207.
Issue 242
Resolved: No, DOM access is not sufficient. All checkpoints meant to
be satisfied natively through the UI unless explicitly stated
otherwise. Refer also to issue 233.
(Note to self: ensure to say that all checkpoints imply through the
UI
unless it's stated explicitly that it's programmatic or both
programmatic/ui.)
Issue 243
CMN: IE ? has an option that prompts you whether you want to submit.
JG: This is done for reasons of security as well.
EH: (refer also to issue discussed previously).
RS: How hard will this be to implement?
CMN: Easy: UA knows when it's about to send a POST request.
MQ: I'm not sure that having to answer a "don't post yet" prompt
every
time that you select a new item is a good idea.
CMN: You are not forced every time - you can turn it off.
GR: I proposed a two part solution: submit mechanism was one part,
another was scripted stuff. The first part was for inadvertent form
submission. The second was to disable behavior like selecting a menu
item triggers the form.
IJ: MQ's concern is addressed by the ability to turn off scripts
(although it may be burdensome to have to do this repeatedly for a
given form).
RS: When do you know to turn off scripts (how does the user know that
there are scripts bound to a select item)?
Resolved: Leave P2 since it affects users who may be disoriented
(blindness, CD).
IJ: I propose addressing MQ's concern more in the techniques for 9.2
(e.g., for long lists, don't prompt 100 times).
RS: This is more of a usability than an accessibility issue.
MQ: In WebSpeak, if there is no explicit submit button, we create
one.
Action IJ: Add this to the techniques document...
GR: For the "50 states in a list" box example, this form is embedded
in a larger form.
RS: I have the same problem as users with disabilities.
GR: But you know the change has taken place visually. For me, it's
much more difficult and disorienting to get back to the previous
state. I think that this is P3 for usability, P2 for accessibility.
CMN: This is a "curb cut" type checkpoint. It's helpful for many
people (P3), but very important (P2) for some users.
GR: Refer to my (archived) problem statement that explains all of the
accessibility problems associated with this situation.
RS: What if the AT says "A new page has been loaded."
MQ: Users don't know that they need to turn off scripts to achieve
this goal.
GR: Also, by turning off scripts, they may lose other capabilities.
MQ: I think this needs to be a P1, not a P2. (Ready to register a
minority objection to it being P2).
HR: In the example we are using (menu items), do you have to use the
mouse?
JG: Yes.
JA, MN: Leave a P2.
GR: I think in Austin, we also talked about notification, and that
helped out (less than P1).
Proposed:
1. There is an authoring problem (that is addressed in WCAG).
2. This is both a usability and an accessibility issue.
3. In cases of lists that trigger scripts, if sequential access to a
list triggers a form submission, you might never get past list
item 1 unless you can control it. You can do this by turning off
scripts. However, you don't know in advance that you have to do
this. (or turn them back on).
Straw poll:
1. P1: GR, MQ
2. P2: CMN, HB, EH, JG, HR, MN, JA, IJ
3. P3: RS
IJ: I feel that without new information, I will hesitate to allow
proposed changes at this time without new information. The WG already
agreed to make this a P2 as of Last Call. It should be harder to make
changes at this point. I want to make it harder.
CMN: I propose that we put an action item on anyone who feels this
has
to be changed to register a minority objection (that will be
presented
to the Director).
HR: Outspoken (screen-reader) handles this case gracefully.
Resolution: Leave a Priority 2.
Action: Anyone who objects can register their objection on the list.
Issue 244
CMN:
1. This is comment in speech presentations. I don't know of
reference
implementations for video. You can do it in hardware.
2. I spoke to the Real Media people and they said that it would be
difficult due to timing issues and slowing audio.
RS: Unless there's a reference implementation, I don't think this
should be a P1 requirement.
CMN: I don't find that argument convincing. People might not do it
because it's hard, but that's not sufficient.
MQ: "LP Player" lets you speed up and slow down audio.
IJ: Priority levels are based on user need, not implementability.
RS: I don't want to make the guidelines so strict that it's not
possible to reach P1. I think we lose our credibility if it's too
hard
to do.
IJ: Applicability kicks in here: if not possible by spec, you aren't
required to do it.
GR: About raising the bar - the reason we are here is not to raise
the
bar but to put the bar where it belongs (since it may have been
knocked down in some implementations). I understand the concerns of
developers, but it's not just about developers - it's for users, too.
We need to work with them.
CMN: There's an unresolvable tension between losing "credibility"
with
developers and losing credibility with the users who are meant to
benefit. The priority scheme is based entirely on user need (and this
is a fairly important feature). All three guidelines groups have
tried
other systems, but in each case, it's been a complete minefield.
IJ: Would users not have access if they couldn't slow down the
presentation?
MQ: Partially deaf people can have access to audio by slowing it
down.
MQ: Have you looked at "Sound Forge"? It plays back MP3 (and authors
it) and allows you to change the presentation playback rate (you
change time base and pitch).
JG: Why is slowing video important?
IJ: Physical disabilities may require slowing down.
CMN: One possibility is that being able to step through frames is a
sufficient slowing of video. You can't step through slowing of audio,
however.
IJ: If we split into separate requirements (video, audio, animations)
does this get easier? Does it get easier for us to resolve if we talk
about synchronized multimedia separately?
CMN: It is difficult to change time base, change pitch, keep it
synched, etc.
EH: If we deconstruct the checkpoint, we should look at the usage of
the words (audio, video, and animation) as well. Perhaps we should
distinguish "audio presentation" from "multimedia presentation". An
"audio presentation" is audio only (e.g., a radio broadcast). A
multimedia presentation is either movies or animations.
CMN: Another question is "What is the need for slowing down
presentations?"
* For audio presentations: slowing down the presentation will
benefit users with cognitive disabilities.
* For animation, may be be seizure information.
* Who benefits from slower video?
CMN: For slowing pure audio presentation, that's fairly easy. For
video only, also fairly easy. The problem is combining them as
multimedia.
RS: Yes, I have a problem with the combination.
CMN: Synchronization is an accessibility issue because the audio
information is required to make the presentation accessible.
GR: We should review EH's last call comments...Recall also that DA
required slowing down by configuration (rather than dynamic
button-based slowing) since otherwise some users with physical
disabilities would not be able to slow down.
MQ: LP Player basically does the sync of audio and text.
CMN: Another nearly reference implementation is video-editing
software.
RS: This is expensive...
CMN: Yes, but it can be done. And it's not tremendously expensive.
What this software doesn't do as a rule is adjust audio when the rate
changes.
Review:
* For auditory presentations, slowing down a P1.
* For video presentations, slowing definitely helps users with CD,
probably helps users with low vision. So P1.
* For animations, ability to slow might help users with seizure
disorders. So P1.
MN: No one has said that this can't be done. It can be difficult.
IJ: Maybe this is the case: synchronization is required at "normal"
rate (2.6). But the "slowing" requirement may not be the same
priority
if those who benefit from slowing are not an intersection of those
who
benefit from the individual pieces.
HR: I don't think that slowing should these media is a P1 since you
can start, stop, pause, rewind.
JG: It is a P1 for audio since you can't step through audio. You
could
step through video and get some information out.
CMN: Use case - cricket! You get a noise from the "stumps" and video
from the "thingy". You need to synchronize the two at which point the
two came together. You can get this information through step through
(since you don't care about the quality of the sound). But I imagine
that the quality of sound is important in some cases.
GR: When I hear things like animation, I think of things like
macromedia, flash, shockwave (and not just SMIL). When you have to
respond to an on-screen video event and a sound, you need to be able
to slow down.
Resolved:
* Slowing down audio a P1 (you can't step through it). You may not
be able to slow down past a certain point (but some access better
than no access).
* Need to review the priority of slowing down video presentation.
* Need to distinguish "sounds" from "audio presentations" (refer to
EH's proposal in last call).
RS: I don't think that the benefits of slowing down the presentation
warrant it being a P1. And the cost is very high.
/* Discussion of slowing according to pre-determined increments,
e.g.,
half-speed */
/* Madeleine Rothberg joins */
MR: I think that a lot of the slowing down issues (especially for
animations), were intended for users with CD and that's not my
expertise. The techniques for this say that this is for people with
CD, new to a language, and newly acquired sensory disabilities. For
auditory presentations, what if you understand it by listening
several
times? I'm not sure about the P1 level for audio presentations.
JG: I don't think that we've heard P1 for sight disabilities.
CMN: I have to speak (Australian) more slowly to be understood in the
states than I would at home.
MQ: People that are partially deaf have to slow down material in
order
to understand.
CMN: Maybe we should assign actions to review this carefully?
HB: In the Daisy guidelines, they have a speech range for the player.
It's something like half-speed to 2.5 times.
JA: Yes, I think it's town to 25% and up to double speed.
JG: Note that speeding up audio for users who are blind is not an
accessibility issue but a usability issue.
JA: Depending on the type of vision, some students cannot use a
presentation at full speed. They simply can't see it. If they can
slow
down video, they can get at the information.
JG: Is there a range that we can specify?
JA: No, the kids have very different requirements.
MR: It also depends on the initial rate of the animation. Many
variables.
JA: I think that much beyond a 25% reduction, you start losing your
audio anyway.
MR: The players I've seen that play video more slowly, keep sync of
captions, but turn off audio. Windows Media player can be scripted to
slow down caption presentation rate (it's not in the player itself).
/* George Kerscher pulled in from the hall */
GK: There are many implementations that let you slow down audio
presentations (VisuAid, Victor, PlexTalk (by Plextor), LP Player by
PW, and Labyrinten). These are standard tools on the market to do
this.
Action MR: Talk to Geoff Freed about implementations that slow down
multimedia presentations.
GK: Some people with learning disabilities need to slow down the
audio
in order to process the information. Synchronized with text.
MN: I'm concerned that we're going to establish priorities based on
reference implementations. This is not what we're charged to do.
GK: In the SMIL WG, there's a requirement to have two implementations
of any feature.
JG: Yes, but our references are not based on existing implementations
(though implementations help us show how it's down); it's based on
user needs.
Action JG: Write email to the list asking for information about which
user groups require the ability to slow down presentations othewise
access it impossible. (Get information from people with
experience/research in this area).
GK: I believe that in the SMIL specification, the notion of the wall
clock is there. For people who benefit from a complex multimedia
presentation, it's clear that slowing down is obviously needed by
some
users.
IJ: Please note that I believe we're only talking about explicitly
synchronized multimedia presentations.
RS: Yes, that's fine. But you shouldn't be required to slow down to
the same rate two pieces of content that have not been explicitly
synchronized. Otherwise there would be no use for SMIL.
EH: Even though impact determines priority, it's my opinion that we
should not include impossible or extremely costly checkpoints. I
don't
have a lot of expertise on how important these things are to users
with disabilities. I'm withholding judgment now since I suppose that
this checkpoint has had a lot of review at this level.
CMN: I don't think there are many cases when you have several pieces
of content together but aren't synchronized explicitly.
Proposed: Clarify for this checkpoint that we do not require slowing
down of pieces of content that haven't been synchronized in the
format
but are playing together.
RS: I don't think Quicktime counts as a syncronization format. Same
for AVI.
EH: This is a very late stage in the process. I assume that this has
had a lot of review. I'm inclined to go with P1, unless this is a
total show-stopper.
RS: Once again, I don't want to make the barrier too high initially.
We need to weigh the benefits against the costs.
EH: I hammered on WCAG for this - how do you define the reference
groups? You can always find individuals who need a particular
feature.
I pushed WAI to identify target groups. I suggested (even though I
knew it wouldn't be popular) that we say something like "a
substantial
majority would find it impossible, beneficial, etc.".
GR: Users with a disability who get to the table early and who are
vocal tend to get their issues addressed. But users who haven't had
access to information, and who haven't been able to speak up, are
being overloooked.
JG: We will postpone this issue and not start with it first thing
tomorrow. I suggest that we address it on Thursday.
/* 5:30 pm adjourned */
------------
Minutes from 11 April 2000 UA face-to-face at RFBD
Participants
* Jon Gunderson (Chair)
* Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
* Harvey Bingham
* Mickey Quenzer
* Gregory Rosmaita
* Charles McCathieNevile
* Hans Riesebos
* Rich Schwerdtfeger
By phone:
* Jim Allan
* Kitch Barnicle
* Mark Novak
* Madeleine Rothberg (before the break)
* Eric Hansen (late)
Agenda
Issue 245
Proposed: s/functionality/information and s/button/graphical icon.
Resolved: The checkpoint is only about messages, not all UI
components.
Action IJ: Propose a new note to the WG (with graphics and sounds).
Issue 249
(Refer also to Issue 271).
CMN: CSS2 positioning. Problem with zooming languages that have no
text flow (e.g., SVG).
IJ: I've also heard that arbitrary positioning isn't required.
MR: An issue about content being obscured. And if the user magnifies
the screen, they need to be able to move captions.
IJ: I don't think you can make an absolute statement that one piece
of
content must not obscure another piece of content.
CMN: I think that Sausage SMIL Composer lets you more captions.
Resolved: No change.
* There's a user need for this functionality; priority not based on
existing implementation.
* Arbitrary repositioning is not required - the goal is to ensure
that text is not obscured.
* Quicktime allows you to do this.
Issue 271
CMN: The question is what's the minimal requirement? I think that:
1. You should first implement the capabilities of the spec (e.g.,
SMIL layout, Quicktime, SAMI?).
2. The user has to at least be able to ensure that text equivalents
are not obscured by other content.
IJ Proposed:
* Add "When text equivalents may obscure or be obscured by other
content, ...."
IJ: Does the player need to allow repositioning when it knows (e.g.,
geometries) that the content does not overlap?
CMN: Yes, when zoomed.
MR: One scenario when it's useful to overlap: when you're viewing on
a
small screen - or when your screen geometry is different from what
the
author intended.
MQ: The AT might be able to find the information when it's in a
particular position.
CMN: I think that arbitrary positioning is what you need to be able
to
do.
IJ: Why in this case and not others (e.g., colors, fonts, etc.)
MQ: Putting alt content in another window may make it more available
to other technologies.
CMN: I think that the checkpoint should require the user agent to
allow arbitrary repositioning. For example, if captions overlap
subtitles, need to move them out of the way.
IJ: I don't think the text says that today. Given the definition of
"configure".
IJ: I hear two cases for minimal requirement:
1. Minimal requirement is to prevent content from being obscured.
2. Device limitations mean that I need to overlap information.
GR: You need both at the same time in both cases (you need the
synchronization)
KB: If I have narrow vision, need to move things into my range of
vision.
Resolved:
* Goal: Ensure that the user has access to content (whether it
means
choosing to obscure other content or preventing that).
* Minimal requirement:
1. Implement the capabilities for repositioning for the markup
language that the UA can recognize.
2. If the UA can recognize different pieces but no the markup
language doesn't have features for repositioning, use repair
techniques.
3. If the UA cannot recognize different pieces, then
applicability (e.g., GIF).
* Examples of user needs that mean that arbitrary repositioning
required: restricted field of view requires overlapping, don't
want to obscure content and don't always know where the key
information on the display is, both for screen mag and
refreshable
braille you can position in a given place and have ATs monitor
that.
Action IJ: Propose a Note stating the minimal requirement and
emphasizing the goal. Add examples to techniques document.
Issue 246
Resolved: Editorial - make suggested change in light of other
discussions on "author-specified" and the results of checkpoint 2.1
Issue 247
Resolved:
* Add "When the user agent can recognize..."
* Add technique that prose doesn't count.
Issue 248
GR: There are fonts that people cannot use for a variety of reasons.
At any size.
Resolved: No change.
Action:
* Add minimal requirement that for CSS fonts, use the generic
fonts.
Action CMN: Find out from I18N how to generalize the accessibility
provided by sans-serif fonts.
IJ: Any minimal font size?
GR: I would make my font as small as possible to get more content on
the page.
Issue 250
CMN: The use of micropayments is a technique in this case. The
requirement is about spending money, but micropayments are just an
example.
HR: Is paying the only bad thing that can happen when you can follow
a
link?
JG: The WG felt that this was important enough.
GR: I would have pulled out other ones (and not this one) but we were
able to separate this one because of the micropayments draft.
CMN: Al Gilman said that this is a CD issue. You have to make it
clear
to people that their money is disappearing.
HR: I have problems with the current wording. I think the general
requirement is to avoid that bad things happen when you follow a
link.
CMN: I spoke to developers about a checkpoint for making available
useful information (this was the original checkpoint). It was too
ambiguous. Checkpoint 8.4 says "make available everything you know."
But since paying money was more serious, it was special cased at a
higher priority level.
IJ: Just because we identified one important requirement and not
others, doesn't mean we should delete the first one. Also, the fact
that we require making available all information (8.4) means you can
avoid bad situations as well as pursue good ones.
Resolved: No change.
* Important special case of 8.4 as indicated.
* This is important for users with CD.
/* Break */
Issue 251
CMN: How does the author know what affects accessibility?
IJ: Read this document!
IJ: Does new support for the Thai language affect accessibility?
GR: Yes, if you're a Thai user with a disability.
RS: But that affects all users who speak Thai.
CMN: The things that affect accessibility are those things mentioned
in this document. There are specific checkpoints about language
support in the guidelines.
Resolved:
1. Adopt proposal.
2. Minimal requirement is to cover the features of this document.
Issue 252
Resolved:
1. No change. The WG has already considered two conformance schemes
that would allow for more granularity (based on user needs and
checklist-based).
2. The WAI CG might want to consider this issue at a higher level.
Action JG: Take this to the WAI CG.
Note:
Issues 253 to 276 were not part of the formal review but should be
considered by the WG.
Issue 253
RS: MSAA does not solve all problems. It doesn't provide access to
text in all applications. You need to do both. There are some ATs
that
don't support all of MSAA (for example).
HR: On the Mac, there isn't an accessibility API. Even for our PC, we
rely on the offscreen model, in part because we cannot use MSAA on
Win
95 because it's not internationalized.
RS: You are a UA with a custom control that MSAA doesn't provide
access to. The AT (like a screen reader) would need to read the text
that you drew to the screen.
IJ: Are you always required to use the devices?
RS: MSAA is limited today to standard controls. It doesn't handle
well
custom controls.
MN: MSAA is for getting input, not writing to the screen.
JG: There are two parts - the part where the developer creates
objections compatible with MSAA, and the other where the UA gets
events from it.
RS: For input, for custom controls, you want to be able to respond to
serial keys.
MN: I don't think it's important. MSAA is just one of several
technologies.
RS: You need to always support standard input since MSAA or others
have nothing to do with standard input. For standard output ("Can I
write to the screen or use MSAA?"), if you use standard controls you
don't have to do anything anyway. If you are going to write a custom
control, MSAA is not always reliable and there are older screen
readers that don't use MSAA. So there is a requirement to do both.
GR: There is also an I18N lag with MSAA.
IJ: It seems new to me that we are requiring redundant output.
RS: Suppose I'm writing a custom button that has it's own window
class. To be accessible to an AT that doesn't support MSAA for the
custom component, you have to use std API so that the AT can get the
information. Another example: Suppose that you're Mozilla, designed
for cross platform. For that reason, you don't support MSAA and need
to draw text to the screen (until you support the DOM...).
MN: I don't think you need to get into details about which a
developer
needs to use. I agree with the reviewer: the UA should be able to
conform by providing info through either one API or the other.
RS: If there's an engineered API (e.g., MSAA) you should use that API
and ensure that it works. And if this is more accessible, this should
take precedence over drawing to the screen.
MN: I see 5.5 as a special case of 2.1.
RS: For output, you should implement MSAA or the DOM first (if
applicable). If they don't apply, draw text to the screen.
IJ: Add a note to checkpoint 1.2 that says "When available, it is
preferable to use the APIs discussed in G5 instead of using standard
device APIs directly."
CMN: It's more preferable to use both directly. If you use MSAA or
the
DOM and then you also rasterize a picture, then you need to use std
APIs.
IJ: I have heard:
1. Do both
2. Do either
3. Use MSAA as a preference.
RS: In JAVA 2, you have to use the accessibility APIs.
Resolved: No change.
Action IJ: Add a cross reference to guideline 5. In techniques,
discuss advantages of doing both.
Issue 254
JG: Is "zoom" the right term.
CMN: In HTML and CSS, you can increase the font size and text reflows
nicely. And the reviewer's comment is true. In SVG, you get no reflow
when the font size it changed: text may overlap when the text is
resized, so zoom is the preferred technique in this case.
JG: "Zoom" in one context can mean to take one pixel and make it four
pixels.
IJ: I think that "zoom" must means go in and out.
HR: I don't think that "zoom" is an adequate term.
CMN: Some user agents rescale and reflow as their zoom.
HB: I think that magnify and reflow and one of the most important
accessibility techniques for someone with low vision.
MQ: We want to be able to make content more accessible, and word wrap
is important to this.
Resolved: No change.
Action IJ: In techniques document, discuss what CMN has been
discussing. Just changing font size may obscure information and
scaling would be better. Reflowing (e.g., word wrap) is a good thing
to do and should be discussed in techniques.
Issue 255
Various pieces required:
1. Use standard APIs for devices, as opposed to non-standard APIs.
2. Support devices considered standard for the platform.
3. Support the keyboard (on systems where standard).
CMN: If the keyboard is a standard input API for your system, you
have
to use it.
JG: I think we resolved that you don't have to support all standard
APIs.
CMN: I'm not sure I agree. Depends on the meaning of "standard".
Proposed:
* 1.2 For all supported input and output devices, use the standard
device APIs of the operating system. (i.e., supported by the UA).
* 1.4 On systems where a keyboard API is available, ensure that
every functionality available through the user interface is
available through it.
* The definition of standard device API includes info about
expected
support.
CMN: I think the UA should support all standard APIs for the
operating
system. It's not sufficient to expect support for a subset of them.
JG: The WG has already agreed that this is an undue burden - I don't
have to support the bar code reader API.
CMN: If the standard API allows you just to dump a rasterized image
to
the screen, does this suffice? This does not make the information
accessible to ATs.
IJ: I don't see how the misuse of an API is resolved by requiring the
use of more APIs.
GR: We need to (a) highlight in the text of the guideline that user
agents should use higher level routines.
RS: In Windows, you would use "textout" or "exttextout" to draw
text...
JG: CMN, do you want UAs to draw information more than one way to the
screen?
CMN: I want one standard API that does the redundant work for you
(and
so that you don't have to draw manually through the other API).
RS: If you use MFC or visual basic, you should ensure that those
libraries default to the standard system API for drawing text.
CMN: You could imagine a system where there is a keyboard API and a
generic text input API.
Proposed:
1. Use appropriate APIs. (Use the generic one, use the right device
API for a given content type, etc.).
GR: I think this should be in the prose.
CMN Proposes: Delete "device" from 1.1 and 1.2. The question remains
-
if you use a good programming language, it will automatically put
your
information through the standard device APIs. "Use the standard input
and output APIs for the operating system."
IJ: What's the scope of "input and output"? Does this include port 80
for HTTP? The "stdout" on Unix?
IJ Questions:
* How much redundancy required? If you have to support all input or
output APIs, do you have to use all of them for all input or
output?
CMN: Redundancy only required when information isn't propagated
by
the API to others.
* How many APIs required?
CMN: This has been answered by MN and HR. MSAA may not be the
best
way to get access.
JG: Where do you stop? Infrared access? Writing to disk?
CMN: On most systems, redirect is automatic.
RS: You could say "for those devices that allow the user to interact
with the system."
CMN: You can push info around through MSAA. But if you put it into
MSAA, it gets propagated.
HR: You don't have to give all functionality to the user through the
voice API. You do through the keyboard.
Resolved:
* 1.1: Delete "device"
* 1.2: Use the standard input and output APIs of the operating
system.
- Point out that APIs should be used appropriately - use the text
API for text, don't use the graphical API.
- Point out that people should not work around standard APIs.
- Point out that there may be preferences in APIs (e.g., use more
abstract over lower-level, but ensure that information reaches
lower-level APIs).
* 1.4: On systems that support a keyboard API, ensure that every
functionality available through the user interface is available
through the keyboard API.
Issue 256
JG: Conformance does not *necessarily* guarantee accessibility (and
non-conformance doesn't guarantee inaccessibility). Refer to last
call
issue.
CMN: In 5.5, we guarantee programmatic access. This means you can run
whatever device you want.
CMN: Max (Nakane) has a telephone that he uses to access the Web. But
the output mode is through the screen, and that's all. The phone
doesn't export anything as far as I know.
IJ: Consider for this case, a kiosk that doesn't allow you to plug
into it (Guideline 5 drops) or a handheld device that has limited RAM
(no room for other software, or it's not a multitasking system).
MQ: This means no mobile device can conform to these guidelines.
CMN: If you have just speech output, or just keyboard input, and
hardwired programming and no way in, you can claim that 5.5 doesn't
apply. This means that inaccessible device could comply.
IJ: I consider dropping this clause of the applicability provision a
significant change to the guidelines.
CMN: As do I.
HR: I don't think it's not conforming then - we want the devices to
meet as many checkpoints as they can.
GR: The way the current conformance statement is stated, those
considered inapplicable must be stated up front.
Consumers/Purchases/Regulators can establish whether it meets their
particular needs.
CMN: Conformance is not the end-all of the accessibility of the tool.
IJ: I still think that hardward and software limitations affect the
range of configurability (e.g., colors, fonts).
RS: We don't need to delete the provision since we are not really
addressing mobile devices. More work needs to be done.
JG: Do people understand that the current applicability provision
means that for any mobile device that doesn't allow communication
with
other devices means that Guideline 5 doesn't apply?
/* Everyone agrees */
JG: How many feel the document should become a Recomendation this
way?
HB: I would like to make it explicit that we are excluding devices.
JG: We do not have guidelines for a user agent that does
"everything".
We can always find some group that doesn't have access, so we require
communication of content and user interface (interoperability). We've
already discussed "stand-alone" conformance.
CMN: I don't think the guidelines should become a Rec with the
current
provision about hardware limitations.
Resolved:
1. Delete the provision about applicability about hardware.
2. Add a comment about how system limitations may affect ranges of
configurability.
3. We argue that this change is in line (i.e., a clarification) of
what the intended and documented audience of UAs is meant to be.
Issue 257
IJ: Two parts
1. We could improve the techniques document by classifying
techniques
(informative, sufficient, beneficial).
2. We should make clear in the guidelines the minimal requirement
for
each checkpoint.
CMN: I think that number 2. is very important. The Director has said
that the Recommendation (the guidelines) must be able to stand on its
own - you must be able to derive what's required for conformance.
Action JG: Identify the minimal requirement for each checkpoint.
Issue 258
Resolved: Adopt proposal
Action IJ: Add statement up front that everything through UI except
where stated that through API or both.
Issue 259
Resolved: No change. Using OS features is a good thing, but must be
accessible.
Issue 260
Resolved: Editorial.
Action IJ: Propose changed second sentence of 1.1 to the list.
Issue 261
Resolved: The intent is indeed support for every supported input
device. No change.
/* Eric joins */
Issue 262
CMN: As we've discussed at length today, there are a lot of operating
system conventions for accessibility (e.g., standard APIs). There's
nothing in the guidelines that says "don't provide a better
installation setup." The Guidelines do say "use the standards since
some device you didn't think of may not be able to use it.
EH: Need to clarify what the accessibility settings are. Are we the
judges about what the conventions are?
IJ: We refer to system guidelines for accessibility. I propose:
1. New wording: "Follow operating system conventions that affect
accessibility."
2. This means that you can be better and single-A, but only double-A
if you use standards.
3. The conventions are those of OS guidelines and what is described
in this document.
Issue 263
JG: For users with screen magnifiers, context-sensitive access
important.
GR: Two-dimensional tables rely on understanding relationships
expressed through layout.
CMN: I've argued in the past that the "standard" graphical rendering
of a table in two-dimensional layout is a sufficient technique for
making clear the relationship among table cells.
Resolved:
1. This is a P1 requirement since relationships need to be available
to users to understand the table.
2. Grid rendering graphically is sufficient to meet the requirement
for a graphical desktop user agent. This is a P1 because it helps
users with screen magnifiers or CD and large tables.
3. You must be able to get at all the cells in their relationship.
Scrolling in two dimensions is a sufficient technique. Structured
navigation is a sufficient technique. Lynx fails because the
table
cannot be understood.
Action CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice.
Issue 264
CMN: Users have access to the text according to 2.5 (being able to
select alternatives). Thus no changes required to provide what he's
asking for.
EH: The definition of alternative equivalent does make a distinction
between primary and alternative content. A strict reading of the term
"equivalent alternative" would mean that the image wouldn't count.
IJ: Have we heard that images are distracting to users with CD? If
not, why is this checkpoint here?
EH: Images may also bother users with low vision (who may be
distracted).
EH: Up to this point, people I've spoken to would distinguish between
CD and learning disabilities.
Action IJ: Ask reviewer for more data.
Issue 265
IJ: It is disorienting for users with CD, or who are blind or
accessing information serially. I can see that it doesn't prevent
access to content, however, it may make it near impossible for some
users (e.g., with short-term memory problems) to locate where they
were.
JG: At some point, inconvenience makes something unusable.
RS: Very large documents are a P1 problem.
Resolved: No change.
Issue 266
Resolved: This is covered by structure navigation.
Issue 267
CMN: The WG intentionally did not choose a relative priority rating
for this and other checkpoints related to Web content. In this case,
knowing the feature is there is critical to being able to learn to
use
the tool.
Resolved: This is critical for using the tool. No change.
Issue 268
Resolved: Editorial. Adopt suggestion.
Issue 269
Resolved:
1. There is no guarantee that the reviewer's recommended strategy
will provide access.
2. This is an authoring problem, not a UA responsibility.
Issue 270
Resolved: Editorial
Action IJ: Clarify the usage of "checkpoints for content
accessibility", notably in G2.
Issue 272
Resolved: This is covered by the structured navigation requirement
Issue 273
Resolved: Editorial
Action IJ: Clarify checkpoint wording:
For graphical user interfaces, allow the user to configure the
arrangement of user interface controls.
Issue 274
Resolved: Editorial.
Action IJ: Verify how it's used in the document. If not used, moved
to
techniques. Or move to glossary. Or replicate in glossary.
Issue 275
Resolved: Editorial.
Action IJ: In that paragraph, move usability and accessibility to the
sentences about consistency.
Issue 276
Resolved: Editorial. No change.
/* Adjourned 15:40 EDT */
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 16:40:03 UTC