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

AGENDA(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 4 May 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:46:03 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000504154427.00cecda0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Tim Lacy
Gregory Rosmaita
Madeleine Rothberg
Mark Novak
Jim Allan

Regrets:
Dick Brown

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



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

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

New Action Items

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

    2.IJ: Propose a grouping of checkpoints based on their clarity of 
stating minimum requirements

Completed Action Items

    1.AG: Write to contact at Gallaudet University and copy IJ related to 
PR#271: Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning not a 
requirement?
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0244.html

    2.AG: Write comments based on current techniques as fodder for the 
WCAG/UA joint teleconf on 4 May.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000AprJun/0205.html

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

    4.JG: Respond to Ian proposal related to checkpoint 2.1 on the list
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0250.html


Minutes

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

    1.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:

GR: 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

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.



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 Thursday, 4 May 2000 16:46:12 GMT

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