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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent 27 April 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:58:30 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000428105659.00cc9940@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
David Poehlman
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Jim Allan
Denis Anson
Al Gilman
Harvey Bingham
Mark Novak
Dick Brown
Tim Lacy
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Kitch Barnicle
Mickey Quenzer

Regrets:
Madeleine Rothberg

Absent:
Hans Riesebos


Action Items

Open Action Items

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

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

    3.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8

    4.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make sense

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

    6.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8

    7.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10

    8.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized audio/video 
slowing down to the list

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Add propsoed definitions of content, etc.. to the document.

    2.JG: Respond to Ian proposal related to checkpoint 2.1 on the list

    3.AG: Write to contact at Gallaudet University and copy IJ related to 
PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?

    4.AG: Write comments based on current techniques as fodder for the 
WCAG/UA joint teleconf on 4 May.

Completed Action Items

      IJ: Update document based on 4/25/00 telecon resolutions

      IJ: Contact MR on importance of arbitrary repostioning in Checkpoint 4.7
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0208.html

      DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some 
from the US Census Bureau
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0218.html

      DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+

      GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0234.html

      RS, AG: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible 
DOM 3 requirement.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2000AprJun/0090.html

      WG: Read EH's proposal related to content

Minutes

Next teleconference: May 2nd at 1:30-3:00 EST

NOTE: This is different from the time originally sent to the group! Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0200.html

1) Review of Action Items

2. IJ: Update document based on 4/25/00 telecon resolutions
Status: done

3. IJ: Contact MR on importance of arbitrary repostioning in Checkpoint 4.7 
Email sent to list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0208.html

5.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some from 
the US Census Bureau
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0218.html

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

6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 7.

DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make sense
Status: Pending.

8.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
Status: Done.

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

10.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
Status: Finshed 3.7

11.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0234.html

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

12.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10

13.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized audio/video 
slowing down to the list

14.RS, AG: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible 
DOM 3 requirement.
Status: Done

15.WG: Read EH's proposal related to definition of content JG, MN, DP, IJ, 
DA, KB

2) Announcements

1. Additional telecon on Tuesday, 2 May

2. Joint UA/WC Telecon moved to May 4th

3) Discussion

1.PR#278: Definition of "content", etc

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#278

Ian's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0207.html

Resolved: Adopt Eric's proposal + Ian's addendum.

Action IJ: Add definitions to the document.

2.PR#271: Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning not a 
requirement.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#271

/* Ian summarizes discussion of last week */

AG: The requirement is that you be able to position captions w.r.t. the 
video. (Needs to be clear in checkpoint.)

TL: I'd like to run this by the IE Team.

IJ: Note that the primary question is what's the accessibility requirement.

TL: I will send email to the list.

AG: You could ask Cindy King (at Galudet); she's done work in this area.

Action AG: Write to her and copy me. 3.PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does 
"structure" mean here?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233

Refer to JG's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0086.html
Refer to Al's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0188.html

AG: I thought next week's teleconf on navigation was for fact-finding?

JG: More about markup.

AG: How can you tell the implementor what is structural? You want to 
discuss with WCAG WG what you know from the markup.

IJ: Some things are encoded in HTML spec.

AG: But some are encoded in layout, not in header tree. Proposal:
1) We leave the word "structure" in the checkpoint text (Allow the user to 
navigate according to structure.) AG: The "gotcha" I see is when the markup 
is not
helpful to you (e.g., current practice). Skip subtree capability is assumed 
by WCAG (e.g., skipping navbars). That's why teleconf next week would be 
useful: talk
to WCAG about what model in UAs may be expected by authors.
2) Explain that structure is based on the document object model (in the 
generic sense) but may have more semantic information when known from the 
markup
language definition, through schemas, etc.
3) Therefore, the minimal requirement (since the goals are orientation and 
rapid navigation) is to allow navigation according to the semantic model 
known for the
markup language, paying particular attention to block and grouping 
mechanisms, and having a subtree skip and/or hide functionality.

AG: I'm not happy with this proposal. You should state more of what the 
user needs:
1) Decompose the page into principle parts
2) Be able to get to the beginning of any part (quickly).

MN: That's what the "e.g." in the current 7.6 says to me. IJ: Two pieces:
a) Where does the structure come from? - Semantic model (structure, 
schemas, specifications) - Repair of poorly constructed page is extra-credit.
b) What set of functionalities of navigation?

AG: I don't think that we should be espousing theories about what the UA 
should provide if why don't apply to actual content in the world. We need 
evidence
that something is effective, not only readily achievable. The specs on 
whole are not effective in this regard (point "a" from Ian). I think you 
can say some minimum
things from known structures (e.g., headers).

AG: I think it's easier to come up with performance requirements (e.g., 
lists no lnoger than five) rather than rules for extracting the navigation 
tree from markup.

AG: I agree with statements like "If there are headings, you should include 
them."

IJ: Are you saying we can't rely on the markup?

AG: No. If you just use HTML, you don't get a usable product. You have 
people using tables and frames to implement the same functional object. 
People have
N ways of building a header bar. The specs don't tell you how to do this.

AG: You have evidence of user agents doing good things in structured 
navigation, but you have not criteria for drawing the line.

JG: Are you suggesting that we leave open the minimal requirement?

AG: Almost: include what is necessary, but indicate that it's not 
sufficient. More research would be necessary to know what's a minimum 
requirement for a
markup language.

KG: I think we can make the argument about a lot of checkpoints.

DA: Then we'll continue to get the complaint that people don't know when 
they conform.

JG: Does the configuration checkpoint help us?

AG: It helps me. I think you have to consider 7.6, 7.7, and 8.6 
(orientation) together.

AG: The user agent's view has to have structure, so that the user can form 
a navigation model. Yes, the markup specs and author's intent help infer 
structure.

IJ: In my mind, the author provides a "view" and the user agent allows the 
user to handle this view flexibly.

AG: The requirement for structured navigation to provide a structure that 
the user can move through. How this relates to what's provided in the 
format is part of
the implementation. It's not the basic requirement. The user needs to break 
the problem down into parts. And to be able to navigate to them. The mission
statement is missing.

IJ: I hear Al saying that "chunk" navigation is the requirement. We 
subsumed this under "structured navigation" since we knew structure 
generically (doc tree).
This checkpoint subsumed a number of other checkpoints (e.g., table cell 
navigation), which are in techniques.

/* Charles drops out */

AG:
a) Chunk navigation is not the only piece we need to address. But it's a 
good example of where our problems come from.
b) In PF, we're working on XML (DTD) guidelines. So that users can break 
down content into component parts.

AG: We want this guideline to drive the PF dialogues. I need this to state 
the functional requirement for the user.

IJ: "Navigate efficiently to significant components of content."

RS: What about "contextual navigation"? AG: "Contextual navigation" is a 
superclass of "structured navigation".

GR: Need to provide the ability to expand and contract subtrees.

GR: Issues of navigation and others are coming to light in the effort to 
generalize the content guidelines.

Action AG: Write comments based on current techniques as fodder for the 
WCAG/UA joint teleconf on 4 May.

Action JG: Write a proposal / clarification about 7.6 to the list (to 
clarify "navigate" and "structure").

/* Discussion of timing issues: WWW9, then AC meeting, then Ian vacation, 
then Jon unavailable in June, then summer slowdown, ... */

4.PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1

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

AG: I concur with summary sent by JG.

DA: Problem if I need to access the summary and all I have is a source 
view, that doesn't cut it. You have to have access to equivalents in the 
same context.

IJ: Refer to my proposal that says this: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0223.html

DA: But it's not just alternative equivalents that need to be available in 
the same view. Attributes, too.


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, 28 April 2000 11:58:33 GMT

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