- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:32:33 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Participants:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Gregory Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Kitch Barnicle
Denis Anson
Mickey Quenzer
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets:
Marja Koivunen
Charles McCathieNevile
NEXT MEETING: 10 February 2000 @2pm ET
Regrets: Ian, Marja
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0231.html
1) Open Action Items
1.IJ: For 4.10 add the CSS2 property. And cross reference 4.7
techniques
2.IJ: For 4.11 add the CSS2 property.
3.IJ: XWindows techniques for 5.3
4.IJ: DOM2 techniques for 5.3 (if any)
5.IJ: For 6.2 add a link to the TR page. Add links to conformance
sections in specs. Also to validation services.
6.IJ: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3
7.IJ: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order.
Status of all Ian actions: Not done.
8.JG: for 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines.
Status: Done.
9.JG: Send a list of questions related to AT developers to the ua
list.
Status: Done.
10.JG: Add discussion to next weeks agenda of how techniques are added
to
technique document.
Status: Done.
11.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on
graphical configuration issue .
Status: Cancelled.
12.DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent
info
is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0
Status: Not done.
13.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints.
Status: Pending
14.DP: Send comments related to accessibility problems of IE 5.5 beta
to
the UA list.
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0207.html
DB followup:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0208.html
15.DP: For 4.7. Note that setting the volume is different than
configuring. Submit technique.
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0219.html
16.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: not done.
17.JA: Submit techniques for 4.14
Status: No info.
18.JA: For 4.8 check with Geoff Freed and Madeleine Rothberg, and copy
response to Marja any results.
Status: No info.
19.JA: 4.14: There are CSS2 properties (including :focus).
Status: No info.
20.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this?
Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0242.html
21.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers
of
streamed text.
Status: No info.
22.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
status: no info
23.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
status: no info
24.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
Done: refer to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0253.html
25.MQ: For 4.9. Send a screen shot.
Sent cancel message.
26.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
Status pending.
27.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.
Status pending.
2) Telecon on 17th on the DOM.
JG: List of people contacted on the home page.
3) CR Update and discussion
IJ: After CR closes, need to compile info. CR review comments
may have an impact on the document.
JG: Propose adding a meeting the 23 Feb to handle CR comments.
Action: Send request for times to adminreq.
4) FTF meeting update
JG: The ball's in Judy's court. Dates are those discussed for
April.
5) Discussion of techniques for checkpoint 5.5 Ensure that programmatic
exchanges proceed in a timely manner.
JG: Out of discussions with Charles at Microsoft. Question of
how to verify timeliness.
Checkpoint 5.5 in Candidate Rec [2].
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-UAAG10-20000128
IJ: What does "timely" mean?
JG: What do we mean by this checkpoint?
RS: Where this originated - in Windows, they want you to use the
COM. Since you can only do this from another process, you are
affected by system scheduling priorities. Access is then slow.
We found in tests that in-process response times were 12 times
faster.
DA: The AT user should have the same experience.
RS: Want no noticeable degradation in performance.
DA: In Word 97 (Win98), virtual keyboard input much slower than
physical keyboard input.
JG: So "timely" has do to with process scheduling.
JG: The other issue is synchronization.
RS: You can't assume synchronization with fast APIs.
Suppose that while the AT is traversing the DOM tree,
if the location in memory is deleted, or the element
members are distorted, accessing those memory locations
could lead to a crash. This is a separate issue.
DP: An example of timeliness: an AT starts rendering *before*
a new page is loaded.
DA: That's part of the proposed handshaking technique.
JG: Apparently you can't start traversing the tree
until the load complete event received.
JG: Is timeliness separate from the synch issue?
RS: I don't think the two should be mixed.
Some locking mechanisms may be necessary to prevent
corruption, etc.
JG: Glen Gordon has complained about the MS because of out-of-process
access. They developed their own since they could do so in
process.
RS: Semaphore interface necessary when running on a separate thread.
That may be part of a WAI PF requirement for DOM 3.
GR: I had proposed a checkpoint based on a WAI PF discussion.
I'll post the proposal to the PF list as part of our DOM 3
wish list.
IJ: I don't think it's reasonable to require a semaphore interface
on user agents.
/* Return to verification of "timeliness" in 5.5 */
DB: I should consult Rob Sinclair (at MS, does MSAA) on this.
RS: I've sent email to him.
RS: The "helper" facility from IE is one technique for being
in-process. Another is to embed the browser in your application.
RS: I'd like to see "in-process" happen. It would take significant
changes to MSAA to make that happen.
IJ: I think that if in-process is required, the problem of
no standard for access to the DOM falls away.
IJ: I propose asking PF two questions:
- Should we change "timely" to "in-process"?
- What kind of synchronization necessary?
Need feedback by 18 Feb.
Action RS: Take these issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA
developers as well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian.
IJ: I spoke with Håkon Lie about the DOM requirement.
- Issue of open-ended spec. I propose that we
limit to Recs that exist at time of publication.
We can update later.
- Also issue of when the spec becomes available. What
happens when DOM 2 comes out? You can't expect any
implementations. We had this in ATAG 1.0; took the
approach of clarifying in the spec. You don't want
conformance to the same spec to change over time
as much as possible.
IJ: We might want to add the word "available" to 6.2.
IJ: Same for 11.1 (WCAG). I think we need to limit to
WCAG 1.0.
JG: Also want to be sure that DOM includes features
that will benefit accessibility.
RS: DOM 2 gives you a standardized event model.
Resolved:
1) Change 11.1 to refer to WCAG 1.0 specifically.
Action Ian: For 6.2, propose some wording to address
the "when available" issue.
Proposed:
1) Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only
for that which you can do through the UI." This would
apply for form controls, style sheets. In short, give
the same write access to everyone.
HB: You need to be able to "undo" as well.
RS: DOM 2 includes some style abilities.
IJ: How does an AT get notified of content changes?
(Checkpoint 5.4).
RS: Add an event listener. MS has reams of documents on this.
Our group is doing work with this.
Action RS: Send some code to show how to listen to content
changes.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2000 15:32:39 UTC