- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:56:21 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
20 January 1999
Participants:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Denis Anson
Gregory Rosmaita
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Dick Brown (half the call)
Mickey Quezner
Regrets:
Rich Schwertdfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Jim Allan
NEXT MEETING: 27 January 2000 @2pm ET
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0129.html
RESOLVED: The Working Group agrees to move to Candidate Recommendation
based on the resolutions below.
The WG agrees to let Jon, Ian, and Judy do scheduling of the
CR period. We will inform the WG.
1.WD#185: clarification of "single key" access
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#185
Refer to proposal by Ian
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0151.html
KB: Do we need the first checkpoint of two? What would go under
that one?
JG: Things like moving keys closer together, using mnemonic
commands, etc.
DA: In the second proposed checkpoint, change "frequently used
commands" to those preferred by the user as frequently used.
KB: How will vendors verify satisfaction? You're basically
requiring access to most commands since "frequently" is not
well-defined.
JG: Refer to unix resources files for how key access specified.
DP: Put key bindings in a profile.
Resolved: Ian's proposal accepted.
Action Ian: Incorporate changes.
2.LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs
clarification.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142
Refer to Ian's proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0146.html
IJ: What does it mean to inform the user of content changes through
the user interface? Also, what does it mean to inform the
user of user interface changes through the UI?
DA: What about author-initiated (e.g., through scripts).
Recall that one of the issues had to so with changes due to
scripts that happen in a separate viewport.
GR: Add to list of useful information about a link: following the
link will open a new window.
DA: If you just notify the AT, the user doesn't know that he or
she should ask for that control.
DB: What kind of changes to content are we talking about?
GR: Content changes that occur without user intervention:
scripts, refreshes, etc.
DB: I think a lot of responsibility here belongs to the author.
The author should author, for example, so that the user
gets a message about the changes.
JG: Even if changes are announced, the user will have to explore
the document/user agent to find out what the changes were.
IJ: Consider the example of the MS home page; you tab to links
and a popup menu appears.
JG: Note that notification to ATs is required by another
checkpoint.
Proposed: Delete 9.1
Proposed: Change priority of 3.9 to P2 and downgrade 9.1
to P3.
MQ: I don't want to rush things to get the document done...
IJ: I think we are rushing it.
GR: 9.1 has, and 3.9 doesn't, alerting the user to changes.
Resolved:
- Delete 9.1
- Raise priority of 3.9 to P2.
HB: "Redundant" is not printer and screen, but different
modalities.
Action Ian: Incorporate changes.
3.LC#136: Proposal for checklist delivery (part of conformance)
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#136
Refer to HB's comments
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0138.html
Action IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation
is dated. Propose as a note to handle this.
DA: There is precedent for this.
4.LC#126: Proposed change in wording to 5.5 Provide programmatic
notification of changes to content and user
interface controls (including selection and
focus).
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#126
Resolved:
- No changes to current wording
- Use Ian's comments in techniques:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0094.html
DA: Also, document what event notifications are made available
through APIs.
Action Ian: Edit techniques.
5.LC#127: How to verify 5.7 (Provide programmatic exchange of
information in a timely manner.)?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#127
Refer to JG's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0136.html
Resolved:
- No change, discuss in techniques (which need work)
- Add statement about synchronization between user actions with
the AT and what's going on in the general purpose UA. If you
are forced to way an extra 20 seconds, totally disorienting.
Action Ian: Add a statement about orientation.
6.WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180
JG: Lack of specificity (minimal requirement) concerns me and I
don't want to raise the priority in that case.
Resolved:
- Leave checkpoint 10.8 a P3 until we have a more specific
proposal.
7.WD#181: Request for a wrapper note designed for AT developers
explaining relation to guidelines
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#181
Resolved:
- This is not an issue to hold up CR.
- This work is being carried out in the EO WG.
8.WD#178: In 10.1 and 10.2 what does communicate through an API mean
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#178
Refer to JG's proposal.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0093.html
JG: If you can't change the input config, the documentation
suffices. Also, the API requirement is covered by 5.2 in
conjunction with the 10.1 and 10.2 (actually, 10.3)
requirement to make info to the user through the user
interface.
Resolved: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3.
Action Ian: Edit the checkpoints accordingly.
9.WD#177: User control of current focus change and notification.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#177
Refer to Ian's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0147.html
Requirements:
- Content + UI
IJ: Can we be more specific about "interference"?
GR: My main concern is focus.
DP: I want "flag me" but "don't require action"
IJ: Is it only a focus issue? Spawned windows are annoying
and may cause problems for users with cognitive disabilities.
Might be a problem for motor disabilities moving windows out
of the way.
GR: You need an alert mechanism in order to know that a new
window has appeared.
Resolved:
- Use old 4.15 but add prompts, messages, other windows.
- Add a checkpoint to ensure user control of focus
changes. P2.
DP: Move some of my 1.5 techniques to new checkpoints.
Action IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP.
10.WD#188: Add definition of disability? (to CG)
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#188
JG: This was sent to the WAI CG and copied to all the WGs. The UA
WG on its own is not required to add a definition. This should
be added later if the CG creates a definition or document.
Resolved: No change in the Guidelines.
11.LC#112: Split checkpoint 10.1 into two separate checkpoints for
author
and user agent input functionalities and mark as
an issue during last call.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#112
Refer to JG proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0145.html
JG: Last call reviewers:
Liam Quinn : Leave as is with current priorities.
Jon Gardner: Merge, leave as P2
Eric Hansen: IJ thinks he said merge; don't recall priority.
Martin Duerst: Author specified at least as important
as user specified.
GR: I object to the proposal. Keyboard is vital to access today.
I've proposed a number of techniques.
How many people agree: DA, JG, DP, HB, KB
How many people object: GR, IJ, MQ
Resolved:
- JG's proposal is accepted.
- Objection from IJ, GR, MQ will be documented and delivered
with the CR.
GR: The WAI PF is dealing with this issue.
Action GR: Draft a short minority statement.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 15:56:27 UTC