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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI UA Telecon 5 January 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 14:23:33 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000105142149.00ceb4e0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: Jim Allan 
Dick Brown 
Denis Anson
Harvey Bingham 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mickey Quenzer 
Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets:
Charles McCathieNevile
David Poehlman 
Kitch Barnicle

Action Items

Completed Action Items 

   1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2 
     Done. No comments for now. I intend to do a comprehensive review of
the techniques Document and will explore 3.2 in
     more depth at that time. 

   2.IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of
content even if it passes content off for rendering. 
     Done. Refer to Guideline 3 rationale of 20 December 1999 UAGL.
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#gl-feature-on-off 

   3.IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental
positioning control in multi-media 
     Done. My original proposal was sent 7 December.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0655.html 

     At the face to face, we decided to make incremental a technique (issue
135). 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#135 

     In the 20 December 1999 UAGL, checkpoint 4.6 includes generic forward
and reverse. Techniques included in 20
     December Techniques document. 
     December Techniques document. 

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#tech-control-multimedia 

   4.IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list. 
     Cancelled. Applicability not used in ATAG. 

   5.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
     Done. 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0757.html 

   6.IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list
     Done. Refer to checkpoint 7.6 of 20 December 1999 UAGL.
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#tech-nav-structure 

   7.IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark,
Mark Novak (cc the list). 
     Done. I believe this refers to meaning of "single key" access. Here
are Bryan's comments 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0756.html 

   8.IJ: Update impact matrix based on 20 November draft (from KB) 
     Done. 
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/NOTE-UAGL-impact-matrix-19991227 

   9.IJ: Include language in "applicability" about portions of checkpoints
related to resolution of Issue LC#138
     Done. Will appear in next draft. 

  10.IJ: Verify that "synchronized alternative" not used elsewhere in
techniques. 
     Done. It does not appear. 

  11.GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works. 
     Done, contacted prodWorks and they will test 

Continued Action Items 

   1.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no
authoritative body that validates claims of conformance 

   2.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow
documentation as an option 

   3.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content 

   4.IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting
related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any) 

   5.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3, 8.4, 8.6 to 8.9 

   6.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration 

   7.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints. 

   8.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use
in Windows for using built-in accessibility features
     (i.e. sound sentry, show sounds, ...) 

   9.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 

  10.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to
not have new windows cause problems for usability. In
     particular, how this will work with ATs. 

  11.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
     Satus: May already be integrated. 

  12.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 

  13.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 

  14.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 

  15.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 

  16.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates
JG'sand other comments. 

   2.IJ: Send this resolution of issue LC#158 to the list for comment. 

   3.DA: Identify the general items that apply to all software from ones in
the current list in Ian's requirements proposal. 

   4.EVERYONE: Review the "Unknown" category of Ian's proposal and we'll
discuss them at tomorrow's meeting. 

   5.RS: Send editorial comments on Ian's proposal. 



Minutes 

NEXT MEETING: 6 January 2000 @ 2pm ET for 90 minutes 

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0002.html 

1) Review Open Action Items

1.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9 
Status 8.3/8.4: Cancelled, though JG may check into Opera capabilities. 

GR: Refer to my evaluation of Opera 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/09/uagl-hal95-19990906.html 

Status 8.5: Done 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0011.html 

2.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration 
Status: Not done. 

3.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. 
Status: Pending. 

4.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use in
Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e.
sound sentry, show sounds, ...) 
Status: Pending. I've asked an MSAA developer for this information. See
thread from Jim Allan and Ian Jacobs. 

DA: There's information at the IE site on this:
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm (Follow Section 1) 

5.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 
Status: No info. 

6.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not
have new windows cause problems for usability. In
particular, how this will work with ATs. 
Status: Not done. Will ask RS a question offline. 

7.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation 
Status: May already be integrated. 

8.GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works. 
Status: Pending. Talked with both Ray and Mark. He'd prefer that the
analysis be done internally by Productivity Works. They
would contribute an evaluation. GR will keep us in the loop on this. 

9.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
Status: No info. 

10.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
Status: No info. 

11.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 
Status: No info. 

12.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
Status: Mark is still travelling. 

13.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 
Status: Not done. Ian reminded her today. 

14.IJ: Refer to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0758.html 

Still todo: 

a) Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content 

b) Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to
issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any) 

2) Announcements 

1.New UA weekly scheduled telecon (tommorrow) 6 January 2000 at 2:00 pm to
3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000106.html 

2.Protocols and Formatting are holding a FTF meeting on 26-27 January 2000
at Sun's Microsystem in Cupertino - Silicon Valley 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/2000/01/agenda.htm 

3) Discussion 

1. Candidate recommendation 

JG: Henter-Joyce is implementing their own DOM-like API. 

RS: IBM is looking at DOM for HPR. 

JG: Work at CAST in their e-text reader also involves DOM. 

MQ: I'll ask Mark if PWWebSpeak is using the DOM. JG will email as well. 

IJ: To get to CR: 
a) Resolve outstanding issues. 
b) Prepare an implementation report 
c) Schedule a meeting with the director. 
d) Target start date: 14 January. 
e) Target duration: will be determined based on implementation report, but
if DOM implementations are working, then starting point
would be one month. 

2. Ian's proposal for "UA Responsibilities"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0755.html 

IJ: Goals: 
a) Is this useful? 
b) What's missing? 
c) How to resolve remaining ones? 

DA: I think "AT" definition is too fuzzy. I think that AT's provides
functionality for which an able-bodied user doesn't require extra
software. Not necessarily a plug-in, may be a wrap-around. Some things that
are conveniences for an able-bodied person (e.g., TV
Remote control) are not just conveniences for someone with a disability
because they don't have another way to do it. This may
comprise the group of requirements that should be built-in natively to the
desktop user agent. 

DB: This document is useful for developers as well as for "critics" of the
guidelines. 

Action IJ: Publish a new draft that incorporates JG's comments. 

DA: Some of the "Apply to all user agents" are actually "Apply to all
applications". I suggest creating a "Requirements for all
software" category. And these shouldn't be native but in the OS. 

Action DA: Identify the general ones from the list. 

Action EVERYONE: Review the "Unknown" category and we'll discuss them at
tomorrow's meeting. 

Action RS: Send editorial comments. 

3. LC#156: Propose change in priority of 5.6 (P1 -> P2) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#156 

JG: Håkon Wium Lee thinks DOM should be P2, since it turns a browser into
an editor. 

Some ideas: 
a) Change to P2 as HWL suggests. 
b) Change to P2 for write access. 
c) Change requirement to be more general (as we did for UI access). 
d) Leave P1. 

RS: You can't fill out a form with write only access. 

JG: I'm not sure that physical memory concerns is an issue. In the past, we
haven't made human resource limitations a high criterion. 

DA: The DOM is a special case. We're not talking about functionality here,
but implementation. 

JG: We've talked about this and since the DOM is platform-independent and
vendor neutral, we felt is was necessary for
interoperability. 

HB: We may not be able to paste into the DOM something that is an audio
source. The error control process has to be invoked to
ensure validity. 

DA: I don't think this is a big issue. Speech input is a wrap-around
technology converted to movement or keyboard input. 

/* DB and JG leave */ 

GR: My concern is time lag to implementation by ATs. People are looking to
these Guidelines for quick improvement to the Web
experience (say, a year). I think that we should send the "UA
Responsibilities" document to reviewers of the document so we can
"show them the money". (Add this concern to the "UA Responsibilities doc?) 

DA: I think the time lag issue is valid for *any* standard we would
promote. Therefore, we can "arbitrarily" choose the DOM. 

IJ: Sounds like a FAQ: "When will browsers be accessible?" 

Resolved: 
1) Leave P1 for reasons of interoperability and requirement for write access. 

4. LC#158: Propose priority change (1 to 2) for checkpoint 4.1 (control of
font family) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#158 

DA: I have a hard time arguing that it's P1. It is difficult, but not
impossible. 

IJ: What about some ornate font family? 

DA: There are probably a few people for whom it's gibberish. But if you
don't have the appropriate font on your computer, your
browser will choose another anyway. 

GR: Important for low vision and cognitive. But my gut feeling is P2. 

JA: You can always find a font family that makes it impossible for someone
to read the text. Take wingdings, for example. There
may be font families that are easier or less easy to read. 

DA: There are inefficient ways, but not impossible ways, to read the text
(e.g., cut and paste) 

Resolved: 
1) Change to P2. 
2) Action Ian: Send this resolution to the list for comment. 

5. LC#159: Propose raise priority of 4.13 to Priority 1 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#159 

DA: I think start and stop (video, audio, animation) is P1. "Start" means
"start from the beginning". 

IJ: You can restart from the beginning by reloading the page. Why is it P1
to stop? 

DA: It may be distracting you from other things on the page. 

JA: I've visited sites where audio was rendered and you couldn't stop it;
different audio clips overlapped. 

DA: I don't think that slow compensates for pause. Pause should be P1 as well. 

HB: If you're working an audio or braille stream that is pouring out and
synchronized with other content, you need to change the rate
of the audio controls and stay synchronized. 

IJ: Pause isn't P1 - you still have access to the content; you can start
from the beginning. 

DA/GR: Lack of pause may make access to content impossible for some users
with disabilities. If they don't have time to stop and
are forced to start again, they will never get to the end of the content. 

Resolved: 
1) Move "start, stop, pause, rewind, advance" to P1. 

6. LC#161: Raise priority of 8.8 to P2 (highlighting and identifying
selection/focus) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#161 

IJ: This checkpoint means "Let me know which elements are active". 

DA: Some users with cognitive disabilities need this. 

JA: If the user can't find it, the function is not there. 

Resolved: Raise to P2.

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 Wednesday, 5 January 2000 15:25:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT