- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 15:39:43 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
6 January 2000
Participants:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Denis Anson
Jim Allan
Mickey Quezner
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwertdfeger
Regrets:
Charles McCathieNevile
David Poehlman
NEXT MEETING: 12 January 2000
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0018.html
1) Review Open Action Items
1.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no
authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
Pending
2.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to
allow
documentation as an option
Pending
3.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content
Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0030.html
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.IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates
JG'sand other comments.
6.IJ: Send this resolution of issue LC#158 to the list for
comment.
Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0020.html
Objections from JG, DP.
7.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3, 8.4, 8.6 to 8.9
Done (or almost).
8.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR
consideration
Not Done.
9.DA: Identify the general items that apply to all software from ones
in
the current list in Ian's requirements proposal.
Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0028.html
10.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints.
Pending.
11.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, ...)
12.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
13.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.
14.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
Satus: May already be integrated.
15.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
16.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
17.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
18.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
19.RS: Send editorial comments on Ian's proposal.
Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0029.html
20.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission.
Pending
21.EVERYONE: Review the "Unknown" category of Ian's proposal and we'll
discuss them at tomorrow's meeting.
Done.
2) Announcements
1.Extra UA telecon scheduled 12 January 2000 at 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm
Eastern
Standard Time, USA
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000112.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
Discussion
1.Ian's proposal for a rational document related to user agent
accessibility responsibilities
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ua-resp-19991228
DA: Recall, some of the "native" checkpoints apply to
every app.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0028.html
IJ: I may implement DA's list with, e.g., an asterisk to indicate
which ones may be system-wide.
GR: I think this info should be put in the Techniques document.
KB: Don't forget that the UA may do it better than the OS...
IJ: On to the "Unknown list"
a) Checkpoint 7.3 Allow the user to navigate all active elements.
KB: Since we require device-independent access to active
elements, I need to get at these with the keyboard.
KB: There's a debate on the "CHI" list about whether content
brings interface.
GR: This fits in with the argument that UI provided by the
author is on par with UI provided by the UA.
Resolved: Navigation of active elements required because
these are user interface elements. If you can't identify
an active element for activation, it's useless.
Add to category "Requirements for content rendered natively",
though it's UI in nature.
b) Checkpoint 7.4 Allow the user to navigate just among all
active elements.
IJ: This is just a special case of 7.3 and so once 7.3
is settled, this one will follow.
c) Checkpoint 7.5 Allow the user to search for rendered
text content, including text equivalents of visual and
auditory content.
DA: If the content is streaming and it hasn't arrived yet,
is it available for searching?
IJ: Searching is done in a time-independent manner.
MK: You can interrogate the server of the streamed text.
Action MK: Find out techniques for sending text search
requests to servers of streamed text.
HB: Rendered text excludes many attribute values.
Arguments:
a) UAs already do this.
b) Searching is essential for people with disabilities
and a convenience for all users.
c) Users render the text content.
Notes: NN, IE, Opera don't allow you to search for it today.
Issue: Should searching equivalent text be an AT responsibility?
KB: Is it an argument that because ATs do this today that
means that mainstream UAs should not?
RS: Suppose you have images turned on and search for alt
text. You may confuse users by landing on the image.
IJ: But the text isn't rendered in that case. The goal
is that: as soon as any user has access to the content,
all users should have access to it.
Resolved: Create a category "The WG felt that this
functionality is essential to users with disabilities."
d) Checkpoint 7.6 Allow the user to navigate according to
structure.
Thoughts:
a) User shouldn't have to understand underlying structure
of a document to navigate it, but should be able to
navigate. Thus details of "structural navigation" left
ambiguous.
b) No minimal requirement obvious except that navigation
is required as an essential functionality, otherwise too
burdensome to have to reread the page from top to bottom.
c) ATs may provide specialized navigation, but some native
implementation of navigation essential for access.
d) Structure available through the DOM. The Guidelines should
encourage navigation in a manner appropriate for the
rendering handled by the type of user agent being used.
DA: If we say that you have to do something natively, we have
to be able to say what to do.
JG: This is closely linked to 7.6 for me. Like searching, it's
a way to access content.
JG: Structured navigation hasn't been a requirement for
desktop user agents.
IJ:
- Backwards compatibility issue? Require structured
navigation until the DOM is available.
JG: This functionality is useful for different media.
Opera does this. Auditory browsers do this. We think
that general purpose user agents should incorporate
these for general audience.
IJ: Native structured navigation gets you part of the way
for others.
KB: Structured navigation will help some users with
disabilities: low vision, motor impairments.
Resolved: Essential functionality for some users with
disabilities (low vision, physical).
e) Checkpoint 7.7 Allow the user to configure structured
navigation.
IJ: This one follows 7.6
f) Checkpoint 8.1 Convey the author-specified purpose of each
table and the relationships among the table cells and headers.
KB: The UA should convey all of the information specified by
the author. I don't think we can ask the UA to go beyond
what the author has specified.
IJ: Agreed. This is a special case of "access to all content".
DB: What does "purpose" mean? There's no "purpose" attribute?
GR: Minimal satisfying of this checkpoint: tool tip of the
"summary" attribute.
Resolved: This is an important special case of access to
content.
GR: (For the record, I think 8.3 (link info) should be P2).
DA: As user agents start to render summary, etc. authors are
more likely to provide the information.
IJ: I think that it's important to make relationships inherent
in markup available to all users, and developers may not
realize this.
RS: Does 8.1 mean through programmatic means?
IJ: Not specified.
Action IJ: Make clearer that this is "information provided
to the user."
DB: I'm not sure this should be P1. This is a tricky one since
I don't think it's impossible to get at the information.
Summary:
1) WG decided that table navigation was important, but could
fall under general structured navigation provided that
table semantics be preserved in a checkpoint as a native
requirement.
2) This is important to render, whatever medium you're
rendering to.
3) Important for users with blindness, motor disabilities,
and cognitive disabilities since you have to
memorize header information.
IJ: In this case:
- Render to user in the way you're rendering (e.g.,
graphically).
- Provide programmatic access (covered by DOM).
(In short, IJ doesn't think a change necessary since rendering
is always "However you render it...")
Action Ian: Harmonize language in the spec so that a single
expression is used to indicate "provide information to the user".
(as opposed to programmatically). Indicate both explicitly
when both.
Resolved: Leave "unknown" for now.
g) Checkpoint 8.5 Provide a "outline" view of content, built
from structural elements (e.g., frames, headers, lists, forms,
tables, etc.)
DA: This is a P2.
Resolved: Essential functionality for some users that must
get through content serially or cognitive
disabilities.
h) Checkpoint 8.6 Allow the user to configure the outline view.
This one follows 8.5.
i) Checkpoint 10.3 Allow the user to change and control the
input configuration. Allow the user to configure the user
agent so that some functionalities may be activated with a
single command (e.g., single key, single voice command,
etc.).
IJ: If native configs only, the issue is resolved (since
configs provided natively).
DA: You could have a macro program that intercepts your
keystrokes before they get to the UA.
Resolved: Required natively since it mostly addresses natively
provided functionalities.
j) Checkpoint 10.8 Allow the user to configure the arrangement
of graphical user agent user interface controls.
IJ: This is a special case of 10.8.
Resolved: These controls are provided natively by the UA.
Action IJ: Indicate that this is a special case of 10.3
Adjourned 15:38 ET
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2000 15:39:59 UTC