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

MINUTES: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 13 April 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:40:44 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20000413153943.00b4b100@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman 
Jim Allan
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Harvey Bingham 
Charles McCathieNevile

Regrets: 
Mickey Quezner 
Mark Novak
Kitch Barnicle
Rich Schwerdtfeger 

Action Items

Open Action Items

   1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. (No
deadline.) 
   2.IJ: Propose three terms to the list: Document Source, Document Object
and Rendered Content 
   3.IJ: The content/ui division in G1 needs to be fixed 
   4.IJ: Resolutions from FTF meeting 
   5.CMN: Find out from I18N how to generalize the accessibility provided
by sans-serif fonts. 
   6.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1. 
   7.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some
from the US Census Bureau 
   8.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 
   9.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 
  10.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11 
  11.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 
  12.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in
the techniques document. 
  13.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 
  14.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list. 
  15.JG: Write email to the list asking for information about which user
groups require the ability to slow down presentations othewise access it
     impossible. 
  16.JG: Take conformance grandulatity issue to the WAI CG. 
  17.JG: Identify the minimal requirement for each checkpoint. 
  18.HB: Take scoping issue of the current guidelines to the EO working group 
  19.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 
  20.RS: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible DOM
3 requirement. 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Adopt new wording of proposal for checkpoint 9.2 
   2.IJ: Propose split to the list. Identify why and issue of priority. 

Completed Action Items

   1.MR: Talk to Geoff Freed about implementations that slow down
multimedia presentations.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0065.html 

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0067.html 

1) Open Action Items

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

GR: Any example given for a self-voicing browser. Still seeking tech
assistance for capturing voiced output. 

13.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 Status: Working on a
technique proposal. 14.

GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list. 

Status: I have the screen shot. Will send. 

17.JG: Identify the minimal requirement for each checkpoint. 

Status: Started 

18.HB: Take scoping issue of the current guidelines to the EO working group 

Status: Sent to UA WG. Will send to EO tomorrow. 

20.MR: Talk to Geoff Freed about implementations that slow down multimedia
presentations. 

Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0065.html 1b) 

No progress 

   1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. (No
deadline.) 
   2.IJ: Propose three terms to the list: Document Source, Document Object
and Rendered Content 
   3.IJ: The content/ui division in G1 needs to be fixed 
   4.IJ: Actions from FTF meeting 
   5.CMN: Find out from I18N how to generalize the accessibility provided
by sans-serif fonts. 
   6.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1. 
   7.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some
from the US Census Bureau 
   8.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 
   9.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 10.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines
3, 4, and 11 
  10.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 
  11.JG: Write email to the list asking for information about which user
groups require the ability to slow down presentations othewise access it
     impossible. 
  12.JG: Take conformance grandularity issue to the WAI CG. 
  13.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 
  14.RS: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible DOM
3 requirement. 

2) On the FAQ. 

Action HB: Ensure that EO documents their commitment to to the FAQ. 

DP: We might want a FAQ for the users. 

JG, IJ: Let's wait for EO proposal before we draw up any other ones. 

3) 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 

4) Update on proposed Rec. 

IJ: Keep resolving those issues! 

5) Open issues after ftf 

5.2) Issue 208 http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#208 

HB: I think we have to be careful about form submit buttons that aren't
obvious. 

GR: I think this should be addressed in the techniques document. 

No objections to proposal: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0088.html 

Action IJ: Adopt wording of proposal. 

5.1) Issue 207 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207 

Refer to summary of 6 April minutes on "where we are": 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0037.html 

IJ: I understand the open issue to be whether 2.1 scope should be reduced
to content for humans or left at "all stuff". 

CMN: Human-readable content through the UI is part of a minimal requirement
for conformance to 2.1. 

GR: I think the scope should be "all", not human-readable only. 

DP: I'm still not sure what's lost if we don't include machine content. 

IJ: I think that the UA should use machine content to do repair strategies,
but that it should not be required to do so. 

CMN: I think that if the user has access to all the content, then the user
can make repairs the UA couldn't make. JG: Is this a requirement only for
markup
languages, or also binary stuff? 

CMN: Good question. It's harder to use a GIF image in source mode. But I
would continue to require them. 

CMN: There's no requirement that if you make content available through the
UI that you also have to make it available through some other means. There is
no statement about how many times you must make content available. 

CMN: 
a) Everything has to be available. 
b) Things for humans must be available through the UI (not through a source
view). In the real world: 
c) There's no requirement for a source view. 

It will meet requirement for things meant for machines. However, if all the
information meant for machines is rendered somehow through the UI, then no
other view required. 

IJ: I disagree that the user needs to know that "id" is there. 

CMN: Rendering is not sufficient. You need to make available the fact that
the content is styled by "id". You need an interface that lets you do
everything
you can do with an id. 

IJ: But the "id" value is not required. What about a processing instruction
at the top of an XML document? I think that we're talking about processing, and
the effect if what's important to the user, not the PI itself. 

CMN: I would agree that that's an edge case. 

IJ: What about the fact that all info is available through the API? CMN:
Not sufficient. 

HB: I want to be able to view all the content, including the META information. 

JA: I think I agree with HB. 

DP: I don't see the validity, for the general user, of having binary
available to the general user. 

JG: This machine stuff could be useful, but there's no guarantee. 

IJ: Suppose a user agent doesn't support PNG, must it make it available? 

CMN: No, only the URI to the PNG. 

IJ: For those things not made available through the UI, what's the minimal
way to satisfy the other stuff? 

CMN: A source view would meet the requirement. But the minimal requirement
would not be for a source view. 

IJ: Why is this checkpoint different from other checkpoints that allow some
information to be handled through an API? 

CMN: We should require native support for access to all content. 

GR: In the case of rendering things natively, whether you need to view
binary: Lynx exposes the alternative or puts in a place-holder - you can
turn anything
it can't render natively into a hyperlink. 

CMN: Lynx gives you access to applicable content, otherwise gives you
access to things it can't deal with (through a link). 

IJ: Should we adopt similar wording as ATAG about the "average user"? That
is, that the user is not expert. I have a problem with P1 access to information
that is not meant for humans and will not be useful to most users. I do
agree with Charles, however, that if some of that "content" is not
available directly to
users, it may not be accessible. 

DP: What does it mean to "make available" information? 

JG: Originally, some things through the UI and some through an API. 

IJ Propose: 2.1.a: Ensure that the user has access to all content meant for
human consumption, including equivalent alternatives for content, through the
user interface. Note: A source view does not meet this requirement. P1 

2.1.b: Ensure that the user has access to all content meant for machines
either by processing it according to specification or by making it
available directly to
the user through the user interface. 

Note: A source view would suffice to meet this requirement. 

IJ: Clearly 2.1.a a P1. I agree with the first half of 2.1.b as P1, but not
sure about priority of second half since information is available through
an API. I'm
not sure that the source view would provide access to most people; I've
heard people say that most users would not be able to use this information. 

Consensus: The split is reasonable, as long as it covers the requirements. 

GR, CMN: Unfortunately, people count the numbers of P1s. Also consistency
with current 

PR. IJ: I think both should be sacrificed for the sake of clarity. 

JG: We've missed something if we've said that the other checkpoints don't
cover the accessibility of the user interface and you need a source viwe. 

IJ: This can be seen as a way to catch thigns that we've missed. 

CMN: (Use case) I went to a Web site. The URI you could use to get to the
site started with "javascript:". The only problem with my user agent was
that it
didn't support javascript. 

IJ: If you don't support javascript, then applicability kicks in. 

CMN: But it's in HTML, which is supported. The UA can either provide some
form of access or tell me to buzz off. 

IJ: Sounds like you're requiring minimal repair strategy is native support
for source view. 

JG: Sounds like what I'm hearing mostly is that 2.1.b is not to improve
accessibility of the user agent, but to repair broken content or deal with
(in)applicability. We have another repair checkpoint (2.3). Do we need
another guideline for repair? 

JA: UAs have already repaired broken content. It's one of their primary
duties. 

CMN: I think the document's already too big. I don't want another guideline. 

Action IJ: Propose split to the list. Identify why and issue of priority. 

5.2) Issue 208 http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#208 

HB: I think we have to be careful about form submit buttons that aren't
obvious. 

GR: I think this should be addressed in the techniques document. 

No objections to proposal: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0088.html 

Action IJ: Adopt wording of proposal. 

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 Thursday, 13 April 2000 16:40:54 GMT

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