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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 13 January 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:37:33 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000113153558.00923f00@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
Denis Anson
Mickey Quenzer 
Rich Schwerdtfeger 
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Harvey Bingham 
Charles CathieNevile 
Dick Brown
Jim Allan

Regrets: 
David Poehlman 
Kitch Barnicle
Marja Koivunen



Action Items

Completed Action Items

   1.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9 
     Status: Checkpoint deleted in 12 January telecon 

   2.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-implementation-20000112.html 

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

   6.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, ...) 

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

   8.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Repropose checkpoint 1.5 

   2.IJ: Add info related to searching for non-rendered information (or
searches using voice output user agents) to appendix 

   3.IJ: Adopt changes in wording for Checkpoint 1.1 

   4.JG: Find a host/date for next FTF meeting 

   5.JG: Take issue of mobile devices/guidelines in next WAI CG meeting. 

   6.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on
graphical configuration issue 

   7.DB: Send proposal for single key access wording for checkpoint 10.3 

   8.DA: Follow up with Alan Cantor on what is the critical component(s)
for graphical configuration (done by email during meeting) 

   9.GR: Remind DP of this action to proposed new text for checkpoint 1.5 

  10.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines. 

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 19 January 2000 @ 12pm ET for 90 minutes

Agenda

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0080.ht 

1) Review of action items

1.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#162 
Status: Not done. 

2.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#166 
Status: Not done. 

3.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#175 
Status: Not done. 

4.IJ: Update document with resolutions for Issue LC#176 
Status: Not done. 

5.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9 
Status: Not done. 

6.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration 
Status: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-implementation-20000112.html 

7.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. 
Status: No news. 

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, ...) 
Status: No news. 

9.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages 
Status: No news. 

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. 
Status: pending 

11.GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list 
Status: pending 

12.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of
streamed text. 
Status: No news. 

13.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
Status: No news. 

14.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
Status: No news. 

15.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 
Status: No news. 

16.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
Status: No news. 

17.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to
inadvertent submission. 
Status: No news. 

2) Announcements 

1.Extra UA telecon scheduled 19 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-20000119.html 

Discussion

2. Please refer to page for tracking upcoming CR review 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/reviewers-cr 

JG: will discuss next weeks telecon 

3. Will attempt for week of 10 April for next face-to-face. 

DA: Early the week of the 10th better for me. 

Action JG: Find a host/date for the meeting. 

3) Issue LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs
clarification. 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142 

IJ: Refer to DP's action to rewrite 1.5. 

Action IJ: Repropose checkpoint 1.5. 

Action GR: Contact DP offline to follow up on his action. 

4) Issue 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 

JG: Objections from JG and DP on the resolution to go to P2. 

JG: I work with people with visual impairments. Serifed fonts like Times
NewRoman are difficult to read. 

GR: From conversations offline, people feel that this is P1. 

Observation: Lots of evidence that implementable. 

DB: You can change fonts in IE. 

CMN: You can do with style sheets. 

RS: Does this checkpoint apply to cell phones? 

CMN: The requirement, yes. However it may not apply to those phones that
only have one font available. 

/* Discussion about mobile technologies */ 

DA: One way to specify the font is presumably through style sheets. 

RS: I think that 4.1 (in 20 December GL) should be P2. Part of the problem
is the number of P1 checkpoints we have. 

CMN: We should resist that pushback. The goal is to solve the problems
people face. 

DB: I share some of RS's concerns, but I think this one is very important.
I personally have problems reading some pages. 

GR: I think that it's 
a) Important 
b) Implemented 
c) Implementable. 

And thus P1. 

RS: I can live with this as P1. 

JA, HB: P1. 

Resolved: Make the checkpoint a P1. 

/* Discussion of applicability of Guidelines to mobile devices */ 

IJ: Recall W3C Mobile IG review of last call draft: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0533.html 

Action MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about mobile devices and the guidelines. 

Action JG: Take issue of mobile devices/guidelines in next WAI CG meeting. 

5) Issue WD#179: Priority of 5.8 should be Priority 1 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#179 

JG: 5.6 in 20 December draft "Follow operating system conventions and
accessibility settings" 

IJ: I would argue that not following conventions is not a P1 issue. A tool
may be very accessible and not follow conventions (might be hard,
admittedly). An inaccessible
tool would have other problems more grave than not following conventions. 

CMN: I think a sliding priority scale might be useful here. I think we
probably make the most important ones P1 explicitly in these guidelines.
Therefore, probably ok to
stay P2. 

Resolved: Leave a P2. 

6) Issue WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180 

JG: 10.8 from 20 December 1999 Draft. Alan Cantor thinks that for learning
and cognitive disabilities, should be P2. 

DA: I think that it's also a physical disability issue (too close, too far). 

DB: Is this about toolbar customization? 

JG: yes. 

DB: It sounds like we're trying to solve a problem of bad design. 

DB: Note that there are keyboard equivalents for most of the controls. 

CMN: But often not direct; require tabbing. I'd like to be able to change
the tabbing order... 

GR: For people with certain types of disabilities, the visual iconic
information is easier to retain than a list of commands. Thus, being able
to rearrange the chrome is
important for consistency, knowing where things are. 

DB, RS: Still think it's P3. JA, HB, CMN: I'm on the fence. 

RS: Seems like ability to change tabbing is a lot of work to change bad
design. 

JG: My concern is that this is a general checkpoint. You could do things
that don't enhance accessibility and still conform. 

IJ: I think the close together/far apart requirement is probably P2. I
don't know how to express the learning disability requirement as clearly. 

CMN: Jonathan Chetwyn always talks about "show/hide". 

DA: Not just toolbars: menus, etc. 

RS: Be careful, you're almost reproducing the work of the authoring tools
layout requirement. 

CMN: I think we need to specify what we need more. 

Action CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people. 

IJ: It sounds like, however specific the requirement, some configurability
would be required. But it sounds like there will be resistance to
configurability, so how do we
hope to advance here? 

RS: I think it should be there, but P3. Is the order of toolbar buttons a P2? 

JG: What about limiting to "toolbar"? 

RS: Yes, those boundaries are more resonable, but ... 

DB: This doesn't feel like a P2 to me. 

Action DA: Follow up with Alan Cantor (done by email during meeting). 

DA: Looking at techniques, they are all based on current toolbars. 

IJ: We will take this to the list. 

7) Issue WD#182: Should searching equivalent text be an AT responsibility 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#182 

7.5 Allow the user to search for rendered text content, including text
equivalents of visual and auditory content. [Priority 2] 

JG: Note that this is for rendered text only. 

IJ: - If it's rendered for some people, it must be rendered for all people. 

IJ: What does it mean to search on something that's not rendered? What
happens when it's found? Will you have to rerender content? 

GR: My concern: people work in a corporate environment; they can't change
options or preferences. They have image loading turned on and can't turn it
off. 

IJ: (One technique is view source.) 

IJ: It doesn't make sense to me that socially, someone cannot access a
browser's functionalities and therefore to require the browser vendors to
do more. 

RS: I'm familiar with this problem (working on JavaOS). Some clients are
downloadable that can only be configured by the sysadmin. It's not the
application that has the
problem, it's the policy. What needs to be fixed is not the UA. 

GR: I agree it's not the UA's responsibility to make up for bad management. 

IJ: I think that it's not useful to fish around in the dark: ask the UA to
render and then look for things. 

GR: If the requirement is only rendered text, we need to highlight this in
the AT appendix. Searching and configuration of non rendered info may be
left to ATs (refer to
JFW). 

Action IJ: add this info to appendix. 

HB: What about META? Are we allowing people to search for that? 

IJ: Today, no one has access to it. 

CMN: It's not part of the semantics of HTML to render META. It is, for
example, to render "title" and "alt". 

JG: In fact, people put information in META that they *don't* want
rendered. CMN: It seems counter-intuitive to find something that you don't
know is there (since it's
not rendered). 

GR: Netscape gives you an information page. No meta information. But that's
clearly a place where that information could be exposed. 

ResolutionNo objections to leaving P2 as is. 

8) Issue WD#183: Proposed rewording to checkpoint 7.5 (search alt content) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#183 

IJ: What's the difference? 

Resolved: shorten to checkpoint text to: 

Checkpoint 7.5 Allow the user to search for rendered text content,
including rendered text equivalents. 

CMN: I wonder whether we need a requirement for view source...? 

IJ: Isn't that a technique for structured view? 

9) Issue WD#184: Proposed simplification to checkpoint 1.1
(device-independent access) 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#184 

Proposed: 

1.1 Ensure that each functionality available through the user interface is
also available through each supported input device API. Excluded from this
requirement are
functionalities that are part of an input API itself (e.g., text input for
the keyboard API, pointer motion for the pointer API, etc.) 

IJ: I might change to "through each input device API supported by the user
agent" for clarity. 

Resolved: Adopt the proposal. 

Action Ian: Adopt this wording. 

10) Issue WD#185: clarification of "single key" access 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#185 

GR: When you have to hold down one key and press another, that's a problem. 

JG: Sticky keys is available, but requires a second key. 

RS: I think we need to give users the option of: 
a) Either a single stroke 
b) A sequence, without being required to hold down a modifier. 

DA: I think direct access to a subset of functionalities is what people want. 

RS: We differentiate "key sequence" from "key chord" (one or more). 

Goals: 
- Avoid key chord. 
- Single key is best, but not always applicable. 
- Sequence applicable in some cases (e.g., where motion involved). 

IJ: We mean "Every functionality that may be operated through a single
stroke, but not all functionalities assigned at once to single keys." 

DB: But functionalities aren't always one step. I think we are talking
about macros. 

IJ: Take case of print: you have both "single stroke" printing and the
preferences menu (for multiple changes). You want single key for the
former, doesn't apply to latter.

GR: substitute "any" for "every". 

Action DB: Send proposal for new text for this requirement. 

Adjourned 15:43 ET 



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, 13 January 2000 16:39:46 GMT

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