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

Re: MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 20 January 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:19:24 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000121131631.01dd8d10@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: ij@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak)
Ian,
I think this is the information the group aws asking Dick for, so we can
close this action item and add the information to the techniques document.  

Rather than using the URI, you may what to insert the proceedure Mark Novak
used to find the information, since the URI enclosed may change over time.

Jon


At 12:19 PM 1/21/00 -0600, mark novak wrote:
>see 1 comment below at MN in the "Continued Action Items"  section:
>
>>Attendance
>>
>>Chair: Jon Gunderson
>>
>>Scribe: Ian Jacobs
>>
>>Present:
>>Denis Anson
>>Kitch Barnicle
>>Gregory Rosmaita
>>David Poehlman
>>Harvey Bingham
>>Mickey Quenzer
>>Dick Brown (joined late, left early)
>>
>>Regrets:
>>Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>Jim Allan
>>Charles McCathieNevile
>>
>>
>>
>>Action Items
>>
>>Completed Action Items
>>
>>   1.IJ: Make change for 2.1 note.
>>   2.IJ: Make change in checkpoint 1.6 with clarification of what is meant
>>by profiles
>>   3.IJ: Make change wtih clarification of Checkpoint 2.3
>>   4.IJ: Propose split of checkpoint 10.4 to list
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0151.html
>>   5.IJ: Propose changes to checkpoint 1.5 to the list.
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0146.html
>>
>>Continued Action Items
>>
>>   1.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on
>>graphical configuration issue
>>   2.DB: Schedule time with IE team for next tuesday when CMN will be in
>>Seattle to review the CR if ready.
>>   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, ...)
>
>MN:  Not to steal any of Dick's thunder, but after my prior posting regarding
>this question, I'm still puzzled as to what people
>want to know about "how developer's find out" about the built-in access
>features in Windows.  These are simple Win32 API calls.  If you are
>developing a UA or an
>application for Windows, and this information is important to you, you
>simply ask the system for it,  via the   SystemParametersInfo     function.
>
>Please refer to the following
>pages, or just search the Microsoft site using keywords like ShowSounds
>and SoundSentry for more detailed information if you wish.
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/msaa/access_4dyq.htm
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/msaa/access_8y0j.htm
>
>Sorry if this confuses the issue and if I'm still missing the question.
>
>
>
>
>
>>   5.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.
>>   6.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of
>>streamed text.
>>   7.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
>>   8.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
>>   9.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
>>  10.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
>>  11.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.
>>
>>New Action Items
>>
>>   1.IJ: Incoporate Ian's proposed changes to resolve issue WD#185
>>   2.IJ: Incoporate Ian's resolutions for issue LC#142
>>   3.IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation is dated.
>>Propose as a note to handle this.
>>   4.IJ: Edit techniques related to checkpoint 5.4 to reflect the possible
>>way AT can have programmatic access event information
>>   5.IJ: Add a statement about orientation to checkpoint 5.5 on timely
>>exchange of information
>>   6.IJ: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3
>>   7.IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP to checkpoint 4.15
>>   8.GR: Draft a short minority statement related to merging and priority
>>of checkpoints 10.1 and 10.3
>>
>>
>>
>>Minutes
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Discussion
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Proposal to go to Candidate Recommendation
>>
>>Unanimous vote to go to Candidate Recommendation status
>>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
>

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 Friday, 21 January 2000 14:21:38 GMT

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