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

Raw minutes from 12 January UA Guidelines teleconf.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:39:44 -0500
Message-ID: <387CCA70.CEF67D2F@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
12 January 1999

Participants:

Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Kitch Barnicle
Denis Anson
Harvey Bingham
Dick Brown
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory Rosmaita
Jim Allan

Regrets:
Rich Schwertdfeger
David Poehlman

NEXT MEETING: 13 January 2000 @ 2pm ET for 90 minutes

Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0050.html

1) Review of action items

Review Open Action Items

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

 Done: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html

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

 Done: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html

   3.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) 

   Note done.

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

  Done.
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0048.html

   5.IJ: Make clearer in Checkpoint 8.1 that it is "information provided
to
         the user." 

  Done.

   6.IJ: 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. 

  Done.

   7.IJ: Indicate that this is a special case of 10.3 

  Done.

   8.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9 

  Done.

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

  Status: For this afternoon.

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

  Status: 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, ...)

  Status: Pending.

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

  Status: Not done.

  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. 

  Status: Pending.

  14.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation

  Status: Pending. Refer to GR's email on installation.

  15.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers
of
         streamed text. 

  Status: Not done.

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

  Status: Not done.

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

  Status: Not done.

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

  Status: Not done.

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

  Status: Not done.
  GR: MN not back from Japan yet.

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

  Status: Not done.

2) Announcements 

   1.Regular UA telecon scheduled 13 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-20000113.html 

3) F2F Meeting to process Proposed Recommendation Issues 

   CMN: Based on ATAG, I think it would be worthwhile. I'd also
        suggest allowing a long time. Book extra time (3-4 weeks)
        Note: CMN will be in the UA in April.
    
   GR: Other WAI meetings around CSUN. 

   JG: WCAG may not meet then due to unavailability of chairs.
       Possibly 27 March.

   JG: Who's willing to go to a meeting late March, early April:
       KB, CMN, DB, DA, GR, IJ, HB, JG.

4) Candidate Recommendation Preparation
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0049.html 

   HB: Do we get an early read from developers?

   IJ: I think coordination is the piece that's missing in our
       preparation for CR.

   KB: The plan is reasonable. 

   DB: I will coordinate with IE Team.

   GR: JG should contact MH at ProdWorks.

   GR: I can work with Dolphin.

   GR: I can talk to Håkon (since I'm a beta tester). How would
       we handle a review of a beta-version?

   IJ: I will talk to Håkon.

  CMN: I'll be talking to RealNetworks people in Seattle.

   JG: Other Netscape contacts?

   GR: Mozilla? 
 
   JR: We can talk to IBM contacts about Mozilla.

   Schedule for CR:

   IJ: Probably not ready for CR 14 January. Will try for following
week.

5) User Agent Responsibilities Document
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/ua-resp-20000109 

   GR: I like the direction it's taking.

   JG: Send comments to the list.

6) Issue LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2. 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#162 
 
   KB: How will developers say that they meet this checkpoint?
   JG: How much consistency is required?
   IJ: Seems like usability, not accessibility to me.
   GR: If the configuration changes significantly, it should be noted
       in documentation and README.
   IJ: Seems like definition of P3 applies.
   DA: Can be a bigger problem for users with cognitive difficulties.
       Rearranging controls makes it very difficult.
   KB: Is documentation of changes more important?
   IJ: Another factor - difficulty of establishing minimal
       requirement.
   JG: If the change makes using the tool easier, but there is
       inconsistency, what do you do?
   DA/GR: I think it's arguably a P2, but we do have a problem with
       identifying how you meet it.
   CMN: My gut feeling is P2, but not sure.
    JA: Same here. It's hard to nail down which direction to go on this.
    GR: We need to point developers to the other aspects of the
        question, notably documentation of changes.
    HB: I think P3 is ok.
    DB: I think P3 is ok.
    KB: This falls to me in the category of general UI design. 
        Proposed:
            - Delete checkpoint 8.9. Move discussion to guideline
rationale
              or principles of accessible design.
            - Talk about documentation of changes in G11.
    DA: We're trying to say: don't make arbitrary changes. Will that
being
       in prose alone make it clear that this is an accessibility
       issue?

    GR: I'm ok with deleting the checkpoint as long as clearly
        indicate that documentation important.

    DA: I still think it's a significant issue, even if it's in the
        documentation. It's a burden beyond the documentation.

    KB: I agree that it's an important issue.

    IJ: Proposed:
        - Delete 8.9
        - Add a checkpoint in documentation (P3)?

    GR: Dolphin offers compatibility modes. This has boosted their
        sales. Propose adding a technique to configuration checkpoint
        about compatibility with previous UIs.

    Resolved:
        - In principles of design, add consistency to list of 
          good design ideas.
        - Delete 8.9
        - Add a P2 checkpoint in G11 about documenting changes
        - Add a technique to config checkpoint about compatibility
          modes.

   Action IJ: Update document with these changes.

7) Issue LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere
with
   OS conventions) 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#166 
 
   IJ: 10.5 in 20 Dec 1999 draft.
   DA: If the OS intercepts keystrokes, the UA won't see those
       inputs.
   JG: But that's the same for everyone.
   DA: But may be an accessibility if you can do it through mouse but
       not keyboard.
   KB: That's covered by 1.1
   GR: Do we have "mobility access keyboard modifiers reserved for
       the operating system" in the techniques document?
   JB: I think in the appendix.
   GR: Based on the second sentence it's a P1 item. (e.g., breaking
       accessibility input methods). 

   Resolved:
       - Change 10.5 to P1 "Avoid default input configurations that
                interfere with operating system accessibility
conventions."
       - Move first sentence of note afterwards to techniques for 5.6

   Action IJ: Update document with these changes.

8) Issue LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#175 

   IJ: 4.15 in 20 Dec draft.
   GR: In the absence of notification, serious accessibility problems.
       People think that their history mechanism is broken. People
       often work around by shutting down the browser window.
   DB: I think it's inconvenient, but not impossible. P2.
   GR: The key point is knowing; not the event itself.

   Resolved:

     - Leave P2
     - Move "SMIL" example in Note to techniques. (Ian to simplify)
     - Add cross-ref from 4.15 to 9.1

   Action IJ: Update document with these changes

9) Issue LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint
8.7
   (link information) 
     http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#176 

   IJ: 8.3 in 20 December draft. 

   KB: If a UA implements CSS, do they meet this checkpoint?
   IJ: If pseudo-elements supported.
   DA: If you have a page with lots of links, if you don't have 
       a way to know which you've visited, you have to memorize that
       and it's difficult to access the data.
   GR: There are a lot of superfluous links on pages, notably portal
       pages.
   DA: I think it's a P2.
   GR: I think P1, but can live with P2.
   JA: I think it's a P2.
   HB: I think it's a P2.
   DB: I think it's a P2.

   Proposed:
        - Make 8.3 and 8.7 P2.

   DB: I have a reservation about making 8.7 P2. I think  developers
       might not add features because of this.

   DA: You can't find a way to present link information that is 
       accessible to everyone. 

   GR: Refer to section 3.3 of techniques document (link techniques)

   KB: Do we have a checkpoint for link presentation?

   IJ: Yes: 8.6

   KB: If the UA supports CSS, does that suffice? Or does the UA
       also have to provide a piece of UI for presenting information?
       Or must the default style sheet display all information?

   Consensus:
     - The concept is P2.
     - Problems with ambiguity of the checkpoint.
       There may be some implementation problems.
     - Configuration less important if UA makes right choice
       about what information to present.

   Action GR: Send screen shot of JFW link view.

   Resolved:

     - Add (back the old) 
       checkpoint for visited/unvisited links P2. If you don't have
       access to that information is to follow a link and then return.
       For complex pages, this becomes an unreasonable burden for
       people with non-graphical browsers or cognitive disabilities.
 
     - Leave 8.3 and 8.7 as is (removing visited).

   Action IJ: Update document with these changes.
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2000 13:40:00 GMT

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