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

AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 19 April 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:21:56 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000418101914.00c92100@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Telecon for April 19th, 2000
\
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, April 19th
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in:Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038

Agenda

Review Action Items (see details at end of message)

Announcements

    1.April 27th, WCAG Telecon will be discussing markup to provide 
navigation information
      to user agents

    2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information Technology 
Accessibility
      Standardsby 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

Discussion

    1.Update on proposed recommendation process

    2.Issue #PR207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207

      Notes:

           A. Consensus on access to all human readible content through the 
user interface

           B. Consensus on access to all alternative equivalents through 
the user interface

           C. Currently the group has identified the primary use for access 
to machine readible
           content through the user interface is for repair purposes. The 
following items
           summarize the chairs view of the issue:
              C.1 We have previously removed other repair related 
checkpoints (linearization
                of tables, etc..). The only one left is Checkpoint 2.3.
              C.2 Examples sited affect people with disabilities the same 
as people without
                disabilities. Markup that does not conform to WCAG.
              C.3 Examples sited require an expert knowledge of markup for 
repair (small
                number of people with skill and motivation)
              C.4 Examples sited do not guarantee access to content only 
potential
              C.5 This would be a new requirement and may require stepping 
back to a
                previous stage in the recommendation process

    3.PR#224: Checkpoint 4.16: Minimal conformance requirement unclear
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#224

    4.PR#244: Checkpoint 4.5: Change to P2 since no reference implementation.
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#244

    5.PR#257: Difficult to know when a UA has conformed.
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#257

    6.PR#262: Checkpoint 5.9: Change Priority since non-standard approaches 
may be
      better.
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#262

    7.PR#264: Checkpoint 3.9: Raise priority since may cause CD problems.
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#264

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.IJ: Adopt new wording of proposal for checkpoint 9.2

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

    7.CMN: Find out from I18N how to generalize the accessibility provided 
by sans-serif
      fonts.

    8.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus 
navigation would suffice
      for Checkpoint 8.1.

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

   10.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8

   11.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+

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

   13.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2

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

   15.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8

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

   17.JG: Write email to the list asking for information about which user 
groups require the
      ability to slow down presentations othewise access it impossible.

   18.JG: Take conformance grandulatity issue to the WAI CG.

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

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

   21.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10

   22.RS: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible DOM 
3 requirement.
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 Tuesday, 18 April 2000 11:22:01 GMT

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