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

Raw minutes from 4 May UA teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:33:03 -0400
Message-ID: <3911D06F.E77AF2F4@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
4 May 2000

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Harvey Bingham
 David Poehlman
 Mickey Quenzer 
 Tim Lacy
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Madeleine Rothberg
 Mark Novak 
 Jim Allan

Absent:

 Denis Anson
 Al Gilman
 Kitch Barnicle
 Rich Schwerdtfeger
 Eric Hansen
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Hans Riesebos

Regrets:

 Dick Brown

Next teleconference: May 9 at 1:30pm ET.

Regrets for 11 May: HB, GR, CMN

Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0275.html

1) Review of Action Items

1a) Completed

    MQ: No comments on techniques for guideline 10.

1b) Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Announcements

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

   2.Extra UA call next Tuesday (9 May) at 1:30 pm ET, same phone,
     if necessary. We will also have our regular meeting 11 May.

3) 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

   MR: I posted something to list.
   /* IJ Notes that nothing on the list */

   MR: Refer to AG's comments:   
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0244.html
 
   MR: I believe that the situations AG referred to are both
       important.
  
   MR: I agree with AG's comments on "undue burden" (Point 1 in his
       email).

   MR: For Point 2, I agree that being able to arrange components
       is a P1 requirement. 

   MR: Geoff Freed and I are not aware of languages that don't.
       allow repositioning, so "case 3" is not significant. Refer
       to minutes of 25 April call for "three cases".
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0196.html

   MR: If there were languages that didn't allow repositioning, then I
       would still want the UA to offer this to the user. 

   DP: Applicability also kicks in in case three - the user agent
       should do that work when it recognizes the content as 
       transcript, caption.

   DP: Furthermore, authoring tools already let people do this.

   MR: In a multitask situation (e.g., watching a video and 
       answering questions), you may need to obscure some content
       in order to answer questions at the same time.

   DP: Can we use another word than "arbitrary"?

   JG: We could just talk about what specifications allow you
       to do.
   
   MR: In quicktime, you can adjust the position of the caption
       window within the general region.

   TL: In Windows Media Player, I can only get the caption to
       appear at the bottom.

   MR: I've seen SAMI demos where there is repositioning. Through
       scripting. It's not in the player interface itself, but
       in the feature set.
 
   JA: SAMI uses style sheets for positioning.

   Resolved: 
     - Checkpoint 4.7 should remain a P1. It is impossible
       for some users to access content unless they can
       control positioning.

   IJ: Should 4.7 be rephrased in terms of what specs
       support? Proposed: Add to the checkpoint that the
       user should have the same flexibility as the author.

   MR: Using the same positioning system of the author.

   IJ: Or do we say more - if your spec doesn't including a
       positioning system, still provide something.

   GR: I'd rather keep it more vague rather than more specific.

   IJ: Is it P1 even if the spec does not provide for
       positioning?

   GR: Strictly speaking, yes. 

   Who supports the broader scope? GR, MR, DP, JA, HB, MQ, TL

   TL: Users need also to fix bad authoring in general. Also, 
       a case of third parties writing "skins" for content and
       in doing so, may eliminate the rendering of captions.

   MR: We may need to change "configure" to "reposition" since
       it's not about static configuration.

   Resolved:
     - Change checkpoint 4.7 wording to be "change the position of..."
       "Allow the user to position .... on graphical displays."
     - Add a Note after 4.7 for cases where a spec
       provides for positioning, the user is expected to have
       the same range of positions as the author.
     - In techniques, talk about the three cases (refer to
       25 April minute). 

   HB: Should we suggest that users be able to reuse dead space,
       e.g., below a television broadcast of a movie?

   IJ: That sounds like a useful default.

   Action MR: Confirm usage of "configure" in checkpoints to
              verify that it means "static choice" appropriately
              (e.g., 4.9).

   MR: I propose a technique that configuration (in 4.7) should
       also be possible, in addition to dynamic respositioning.

   IJ: I propose that, according to MR's results, that if
       most of the configure checkpoints should in fact be
       adjust + save configuration, that we change the definition
       to include that. Or, that we say "control and configure" when
       we want both.

/* Jon leaves to get an award */

4) PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?
      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233

   Discussion postponed since Ian needs to complete 
   his action item from the last call.

/* Ian discussion of publication of document tomorrow. */

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

5.1) Where should minimum requirements go?

   MR: If normative, then in the guidelines. 

   IJ: I agree. 

5.2) Do people prefer an appendix, or after each checkpoint?
   IJ: Related to this - what's the status of the notes after
       each checkpoint?
   DP: I think developers would like them regrouped in one section.
   GR: Other option is after each checkpoint.
   IJ: Including this information in the checklist is an option.

   Resolved:
     - Include minimal requirement after each checkpoint in the
guidelines.
       Identify clearly as normative.

     - Include minimal requirement after each checkpoint in the
checklist.

5.3) Should we pursue this project for UAAG 1.0?
  
   HB: No, I think this a three-month effort.

   IJ: I also fear a time sink now, but that we will save much
       time later by resolving this now.

   DP: Let's give it a shot and a deadline. If we haven't identified
       the minimal requirements within a certain time, we advance
       anyway.

   GR: Even if we don't go out with min reqs identified, we should
       commit to producing them (in a timely manner).

   MR: I agree with DP - give it a shot and a deadline (and GR).
       My concern with GR's proposal is that if you commit publicly
       to a new draft three months later, then people will ignore the
       first Recommendation.

   JA: I agree with DP.

   MQ: I agree with DP.

   MN: I agree more with HB. Should this be part of a FAQ.
       No matter what we do, the document will have holes.

   DP: If we do release a set of min reqs, this could make 
       people lazy.

5.4) Framework for review.   

  a) Checkpoints where the requirement is self-evident. 
     For example (not definitive list): 6.1, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3,
     2.6, 4.6, 4.12, 2.15, 5.8, 7.2.

  b) On/off checkpoints (where the requirement is self-evident).

  c) Navigation: forward sequential navigation
                 in general is min requirement.
     GR: What about backward?

  d) Checkpoints with a range of values:
     d.i) Some of them can be aligned with the range offered by the OS.
      GR: It might be useful to point out that some ATs only
          run under 256 colors. So less might be sufficient to
          meet the user's needs. UAs should not change OS settings,
          which might impact ATs.
     d.ii) Up to the WG to decide (mildly arbitrary).

  e) As AG pointed out, don't have a criterion, but an example that
     would be sufficient.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0186.html

  Action IJ: Propose a grouping to the list based on this 
             framework.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2000 15:33:06 GMT

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