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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 2 May 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:34:25 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000502163300.00c0fba0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Gregory Rosmaita
Denis Anson
Mark Novak
Jim Allan
Al Gilman
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Rich Schwerdtfeger (late)
Eric Hansen (late)

Regrets:
Dick Brown

Absent:
Tim Lacy
Charles McCathieNevile
Mickey Quenzer
Hans Riesebos
Madeleine Rothberg



Action Items

Open Action Items

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

    2.IJ: Add proposed definitions of content, etc.. to the document.

    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.

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

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

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Add minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.2 are to allow for 
configuration for a prompt for any form submission

    2.IJ: Add technique related to user accessing the attributes of an 
element to Checkpoint 2.1

    3.IJ: Update document with cheanges related to splitting checkpoint 2.1 
into two checkpoints

    4.IJ: Add a checkpoint related to synchronization of view (orientation 
guideline)

    5.IJ: Propose checkpoint rewording of checkpoint 7.6 to list to include 
wording realted to improving the efficiency of accessing content

Completed Action Items

    1.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0266.html

    2.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.7 and 3.8
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0239.html

    3.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 9
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0203.html

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

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


Minutes

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


    1.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0266.html

    2.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.7
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0239.html

    3.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 9
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0203.html

    4.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized audio/video 
slowing down to the list
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0065.html

1b) Continued

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

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

    5.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.8

    6.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 USA 
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 face-to-face.

3) PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1

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

Refer to proposals:

    1.JG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0245.html
    2.JG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0264.html
    3.AG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html
    4.GR: Refer to PF minutes (Member-only, sorry). 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2000AprJun/0146.html

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 it).

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.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html

/* 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.

Resolved: 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?

IJ: 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 */

Resolved: - 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 element.

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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html)

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?

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233

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 version.

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

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#279 Refer to RS 
proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0232.html

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 submissions.

Action IJ: Modify document accordingly.



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 Tuesday, 2 May 2000 17:34:28 GMT

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