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

Raw minutes from 2 May UA Guidelines teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:21:27 -0400
Message-ID: <390F2AB7.907F6316@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
2 May 2000

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Denis Anson
 Mark Novak 
 Jim Allan
 Al Gilman
 Kitch Barnicle
 Harvey Bingham
 David Poehlman
 Rich Schwerdtfeger (late)
 Eric Hansen (late)


 Tim Lacy
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Mickey Quenzer 
 Hans Riesebos
 Madeleine Rothberg


 Dick Brown (today and 4 May)

Next teleconference: May 4 at 2pm ET.

Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0248.html

1) Review of Action Items

1a) Completed

    6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8

    10.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.7

    12.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 9

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

1b) Continued

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

    4.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus 
           navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1.
    7.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make
      DA: Pending.

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

   10.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.8

   12.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 10

2) Announcements

    1.Joint UA/WC Telecon on Thursday, May 4th from 4:00 to 5:00 PM EST
      on the Longfellow bridge +1-617-252-1038.

    2. DA tells us that IE5 supports longdesc.

    3. Some people will be in Amsterdam next week at ER

3) PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
   Refer to proposals:
   GR: Refer to PF minutes (Member-only, sorry).

   GR: Discussion of property sheets.

   JG: Scroll bars are important.

   IJ: This is in the definition of "viewport". I don't think this
       needs to be a UA Guidelines requirement since it affects
       all users.

   Resolved: No need to include a "scrollbar note" since
             it's in the definition of viewport.

   Proposed: One goal of 2.1 is to make equivalent alternatives
             readily available in the same view.

   AG: Does this cause us to exceed the scope of Guideline 2?
       The proper composition of views gets into presentation, 
       whereas G2 is just about exposure (you have to get to

   IJ: I see no problem with moving it to another checkpoint.

   AG: You might want to organize the objective of 
       "staying close to the author's view" in another checkpoint.

   /* Discussion of view as a "take on the data" (e.g., table of
      contents view) */

   AG: The term "view" in the database community means something
       different: checklist of what's presented.

    Split 2.1 into:
      1) Ensure that the user has access to all content.         
      2) Make equivalent alternatives readily available 
         in the same view.

   IJ: 'The term view is used in this document to describe the 
        purpose of a particular rendering (e.g., "outline view", "table
        of contents view", "links view").'

   AG: The user agent must support permutations of an object
       ('equivalents') within the same view.

   AG: I think the objectives are valid, but may need to 
       go somewhere outside of G2.
   Proposed: Provide synchronized views of content.
             (In the sense of coordinated but different views
              of the same content.)

   JG: Should this be a checkpoint to make it easier to
       find information in views? Or just a technique? 

    1) If you have synchronized views, you are supposing at
       least two views. What are those views?

   MN: Most browsers already provide at least one view. 

   GR: It's important that synchronization is important if you
       provide an outline view. 

   GR: Issue of different levels of detail in views and how
       those are coordinated.

   JG: Both Amaya and Jaws offer synchronized views.

   JG: Are synchronized views important for accessibility?

   GR: Yes.
   DA: Yes, but P2.

   DP: Yes, at least P2. E.g., from a link list, you need
       to be able to find out where the link occurs on the page.

   MN: I can see accessibility issues, but not sure this
       requirement part of G2.

   JG: Maybe part of the orientation guideline.

   KB: Without having views synchronized, the value of the
       additional view might be substantially lowered.

   IJ: I think this a new requirement and would pretty
       much guarantee that we will have to go back to last call.

   KB: (to GR) What additional functionality would this requirement
       offer that's not covered in other checkpoints?

   GR: What's missing is that there's no explicit requirement that
       alternative views be synchronized with an original view. 
       I think it's also related to point of regard.

   IJ: We also need to consider the impact of how focus is
       controlled among synchronized views.

   JG: How crucial is this requirement for UAAG 1.0? Can it wait?

   /* IJ forwards that a last call means we might get to Rec
      at the beginning of September */

      - Add a checkpoint to G8
        requiring synchronized views when more than one.
      - Review this change alongside other changes to the document.
      - Evaluate later whether this is the make-or-break checkpoint
        for advancing quickly; decide then whether to keep it.

   JG: We might also consider highlighting this as part of 8.6,
       then making a more general requirement in another version.

   Proposed: Add access to only the attributes of a selected

   JG: I withdraw this proposal since I've not heard much support
       for it.

   AG: I think this is a useful technique, though.

   Action IJ: Add this as a technique.

   IJ: By the way, how have we resolved the original question
       about a source view?

   AG: Move all discussion of source view and property inspection to
       techniques discussion in the guidelines document.  
       This section should say the following things:

        - Property inspection is expected to be significantly more 
          usable than source view for many properties.  

        - Source view may be the most usable readily-achievable view 
          for some content such as embedded fragments of style and 
          script languages.

     (quoted from 

   JG: A source view is part of a solution, but is not a solution
       in itself.

   Resolved: A source view is part of a solution for providing
             access to content, but is not a sufficient solution
             on its own.

   IJ: The question from the start, to me, was 
       "how much content has to be made available through the
        primary view"? How have we answered that?

   IJ: I've heard us answer "we draw the line at alt content" 
       in the primary view. And the rest of the content
       is available through the sum of all views.

   AG: Yes.
   Action IJ: Update the document with these resolutions.

4) PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?

   AG: I propose that in techniques we move away from
       headers as containers and towards headers as good
       starting points. The guideline should be to use
       what the author gave you as structural clues (even
       in preference over what the spec says). I think that
       the DOM as the basis of doc structure is insufficient
       (due to real-world "mis"-usage). Use what the
       author gave you. 
   AG: You can even reasonably guess that headers used to
       change font sizes are still important starting point.

   AG: User agents should be encouraged to provide navigation
       among starting points marked up by the user. Headers
       or structuring elements such as forms and tables.   
       E.g., MAP with a "title" for navbars.

   IJ: What's the minimal requirement if we ask user agents
       to do what is not defined in the spec?

   AG: I'm not suggesting that we should require UAs to
       follow heuristics. Only to accept that this document
       will not meet all requirements, and that we have to
       address repair strategies and possibly consider more
       in later versions.
   AG: However, you can do a lot to call out important
       elements/structures in the techniques document. The
       HTML spec may not go far enough to highlight what's important
       for structured navigation.

   DP: I think Phill has said that you have to remain close
       to what the markup language spec says. I think we are
       saying "If a document conforms to WCAG, please render
       it appropriately."

   IJ Summarizing:
     - Minimal requirement is navigation of document structure.
       (elements). However, you need to add filtering before
       its useful. 
     - This will not solve all accessibility problems today due
       to how markup is used in practice that doesn't conform
       to specs.
     - We should not try to solve all these problems in this

    AG: Minimal requirement is navigation of document structure.
        (elements). However, you need to add filtering before
        its useful. 

    IJ: What about the proposal from last week?
        "Allow the user to navigate efficiently to 
         significant parts of content."?

    AG: Yes, I like the idea of including something about
        some of the goals.
    AG: Hitting the high spots is only part of structured
        navigation. Tables is an exception. But in general,
        the table of contents structure will do: and the
        definition is recursive (what is important changes
        as you change contexts, go deeper).

/* RS joins */

    Proposed: "Allow the user to navigate efficiently to 
               significant parts of content."

           NOTE: "significant" changes as you navigate.

    AG: Hit both TOC and table example in the proposal.
    Action IJ: Propose checkpoint rewording to list.

5) PR#279: Proposal to resolve formal objection to Checkpoint 9.2

   Refer to RS proposal:

   RS: I wouldn't mind leaving 9.2 as is and stating that 
       to minimally satisfy the requirement, a user agent 
       can prompt for all form submissions. I looked at IE, and
       based on what they have, it doesn't look difficult to do.

   IJ: I agree that RS's proposal would satisfy the requirement
       of 9.2.

   Resolved: Leave checkpoint as is. Checkpoint satisfied
             if the user can configure prompts for all form

   Action IJ: Modify document accordingly.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 15:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:26 UTC