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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 12 Janaury 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:30:36 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000112132904.00cfe2d0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: 
Jim Allan 
Denis Anson
Kitch Barnicle 
Harvey Bingham 
Dick Brown
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita

Regrets: 
David Poehlman 
Rich Schwerdtfeger


Action Items

Completed Action Items

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

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

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

   8.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
     Satus: Already be integrated or sent to list 

Continued Action Items 

   1.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9 

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

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

   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, ...)

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

   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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#162 

   2.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#166 

   3.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#175 

   4.IJ: Update document with resolutions for Issue LC#176 

   5.GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list 

Minutes

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

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.



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, 12 January 2000 14:32:48 GMT

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