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

Re: AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 19 April 2000

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:22:11 -0400
Message-ID: <38FC8BB3.16E08D82@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon,

Please add to the agenda an item about the UA Guidelines dependency
on DOM Level 2. The DOM Working Group has been held up in their process
of different interpretations of the XML namespaces Recommendation [1]
by various XML Working Groups. Since it might be a while before DOM 
Level 2 advances to Proposed Recommendation, we might want to change
our DOM requirements to DOM 1 so that we can move forward. Please
note that if we make this change (which is significant, even if it's
motived by a process issue, not a consensus issue), we may not be
able to move directly to Recommendation. This would be the subject
of the agenda item.

Thank you,

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names


Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> 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.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2000 12:22:26 GMT

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