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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 10 February 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:40:22 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000210153826.00adb100@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan

Present: 
Denis Anson
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Dick Brown 
David Poehlman 
Mickey Quenzer 

Regrets: 
Ian Jacobs
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Harvey Bingham 
Charles McCathieNevile 

Action Items

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. 

   8.IJ: For 6.2, propose some wording to address the "when available" issue. 

   9.JG: for 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines. 

  10.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1
checkpoints. 
     Status: notes have been lost and are being reconstructed 

  11.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. 

  12.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this? 

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

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

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

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

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

  18.RS: Take these issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as
well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian 

New Action Items 

   1.JG: message Mark H. of productivity works about survey and
participation on DOM conference call. 

   2.JG: invite PF Al, Daniel, CMN and Mark Novak to next meeting Feb 23 

   3.JG: Check with Ian about adding reference in 4.5 to 4.6 in regard to
stepping throught animation/video/audio. 

   4.GR: Help CMN be available for the call 

   5.DA: Rewrite technique for 2.2 (see minutes) 

   6.JA: Rewrite techniques for 3.3 (see minutes) 

Completed Action Items

   1.JG: Send request for times to adminreq. 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0272.html 

   2.RS: Send some code to show how to listen to content changes 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0287.html 

   3.JA: Submit techniques for 4.14 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0297.html 

   4.JA: For 4.8 check with Geoff Freed and Madeleine Rothberg, and copy
response to Marja any results.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0209.html 

   5.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0293.html 

   6.DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent info
is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0296.html 



Minutes

Review of Open Action Items

Announcements

1.Special Telecon on the use of DOM by AT developers to access WWW content,
on Thursday, 17 February

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000217.html 

see UA site for additional information, and DOM survey results. What
supports to AT vendors require. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/ want to address
concerns,
requirements, what can this group do to help. 

JG: not focus on DOM 3 in this meeting. address at a different time. 

mq: review of dom 3 might be useful for future reference. 

2.Extra Telecons scheduled to resolve Candidate Recommendation issues, on
Wednesday, 23 February and Wednesday, 1 March (if needed)


http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000223.html 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/03/wai-ua-telecon-20000301.html 

also regularly scheduled telecons. publish recommendation on March 8. 

3. Congressional hearing info see http://www.w3.org/wai/ua Feb 10 meeting 

dp: judy did a wonderful job discussing implications and demonstrating.
Misunderstanding of what quick tips cards are for (is that all there is to
do). 

Action JG: message Mark H. of productivity works about survey and
participation on DOM conference call. 

Discussion

1.FTF meeting update April 10-11 or 17-18

Judy still in negotiations with Host. 

jg: must be at proposed rec by Mar 10, must announce 8 weeks ahead of time.
may have telephone call in. 

2.Special telecon with Assistive Technology developers on uses of DOM to
improve accessibility of AT

3.Should there be reviews of techniques before they are added to the
techniques document

jg: objected to technique (5.5), techniques was not discussed in group and
added new directions and concerns about checkpoints. Proposal, no formal
method of
review. submit technique to list, if no objections, then Ian edits into
tech document, if objections then add to issue list. Developers are now
asked to look a
document and implement them, must have technically sound techniques, don't
want to confuse issue. must have clear understanding of what we are trying to
communicate. 

da: any technique under a cp must relate to technique 

jg: must be clear so developer doesn't ask "what are you asking for??" 

jg: reviews proposal again... 

jg: techniques is published as a note. can be updated at any time. 

gr: techniques must be usable and understandable. 

gr: authoring tool group, rechartering as interest group to update
techniques, work with tool makers. working groups must evolve how they work
with techniques
documents to keep up with changes. 

jg: current tech have recommendation that need updating. should publish new
tech within 6 months 

4.#190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which
you can do through the UI."

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#190 

jg: read only access to dom, write access to some attributes, current
requirement would be difficult for Opera, want more specifics. JG sent
proposal to list. some
comments. may need PGWG involvement. 

current checkpoint: 

5.1 Provide programmatic read and write access to content by conforming to
W3C Document Object Model (DOM) specifications and exporting interfaces
defined by those specifications. [Priority 1] 

JG proposed 5 seperate specific checkpoints 

5.1 Provide programmatic read access to all content using the interfaces
specified in the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 1) and exporting those
interfaces to other applications . [Priority 1] 

5.2 Provide programmatic write access to the value attribute of form
controls using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model
(DOM level 1)
and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 1] 

5.3 Provide progammatic support for the event model and methods for form
controls and links using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document
Object Model
(DOM level 2 CR) and exporting those interfaces to other applications .
[Priority 2] 

5.4 Provide programmatic write access to all element of the W3C Document
Object Model (DOM level 1) and exporting those interfaces to other
applications .
[Priority 3] 

5.5 Provide progammatic support for the event model and methods for all
elements using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model
(DOM level
2 CR) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 3] 

some comments from CMN, GR, RS combine 5.5 and 5.3 change priority to 1
comments from Mark Novak about event model. need to get Al Gillman and
Daniel Dardelier to review this. JG invited PF folks belatedly, would like
to invite them to another meeting 

GR: at PF face 2 face meeting, Arnaud was receptive to our concerns, wants
a draft of wish list for dom 3, coordinate UA and PF concerns. PF is closed
group,
public disucssion difficult. 

GR: pf not happy with Dom 2, growing pains, want dom 2 out, to work on dom
3 to address large holes. keyboard event model is absent, people may programs
for pointing device rather than device independence. 

Action JG: invite PF Al, Daniel, CMN and Mark Novak to next meeting Feb 23 

Action GR: to wake up CMN, techniques coming soon. 

da: what about script events, assemble a jigsaw puzzle, using keyboard, how
to make mouse work 

jg: see 1.1, if no dom 2 support, then use msaa or other technology to
provide access. made 5 checkpoints for more specificity. 

should we talk about dom 2. not discussed in Last call. are we changing
document so much that we must go back to last call. 

5.CR#191: Does a pause function satisfy checkpoint 2.2? 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#191 

da: I don't think so. 

jg: smil presentation, periodically a link appears, 

da: link appears intermittently, must click link or pause button before it
disappears, same time either way. must be able to change speed of
presentation. 

dp: must know link is there first, then pause 

jg: this is not presentation speed, in smil can say this link appears for
this link. 

jg: have a system that pauses at a link and does not go on until the user
responds. 

da: must be user configurable. 

mq: not a pause under user control, 

action DA: rewrite technique for 2.2 (see list) 

mq: select box, in navigating list, the site changes, does pause apply here 

jg: poor authoring, script controls the timing. 

gr: worked on techniques for that. 

jg: this is not part of pausing. 

mq: if we pause part of the screen, and other parts of screen continue
changing, is this part of pause. 

jg: no, different from specific markup, what you are talking about is
related to scripts. what you describe should be coded to transform
gracefully, if scripts are off. 

gr: better address to the guidelines group, javascript controled image
links that update on a timing. wrote a noscript version, or do a page
refresh with
announcement that page refreshes at x interval. this is authoring practice.
what can a ua reasonably expected to do to repair bad authoring. 

6.CR#192: Does hiding video satisfy checkpoint 3.3

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#192 

jg: computer processing video, it is not rendered. 

dp: allow reading of contigeous materials 

da: works for me, if distracted by video then hide it, 

mq: is there a time when you know what the link is audio or video or smil 

jg: yes, link could call a media player, or some object. 

dp: in IE can turn all of those, what about embedded objects 

jg: what about java script, 

da: how to control 

ja: if not render video are captions included with video? 

jg: authors of controls or native control of rendering of video 

dp: people with vi want to know whats there and whats on the screen but
inform the user, 

da: should have content,transcript, longdesc available for media content 

jg: should get an indication that something is playing 

jg: use css to hide video 

mq: in webspeak play audio but don't display video 

dp: this is a user option to hide information, need some information about
when media has stopped, etc. 

dp: css hidden, does not remove processor/bandwidth load. 

da: not an accessibility issue so much as computer issuer. 

jg: this is p1, css hidden might be a useful technique. if you procees the
video but not render it is ok. 

Action: ja use css display=none to techniques, or don't call up video
player, or hide in some other fashion 

7.CR#193: In the case of animations, does checkpoint 4.5 mean a requirement
to step through or slow the speed as well as being able to turn it off?

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#193 

da: step through not part of original intent. 

jg: review techniques, stepping would work for video but not audio. this is
address in 4.6 this would not satisfy 4.5. 

da: slowing rate is different from stepping through. 

Action: jg-add reference in 4.5 to 4.6 in regard to stepping throught
animation. 

jg: 4.6 start stop etc are discrete functions, 4.5 is changing rate.
discuss giving feedback to those who raised issues. 

Action: jg check with Ian about feedback to issues raiser. 

8.CR#194: In a timed presentation does checkpoint 7.2 mean return to the
time that the user was at in a previous MM rendering

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#194 

dp: not the intenet of the checkpoint. not sure if it available 

mq: can return to place in a stream, function in g2 go to a clip and return
to a point where you left it, if it is not a live stream. 

da: could be difficult for easily distract folks 

jg: maintain history list 

gr: analogous to restarting a download. 

mq: does this apply to mm? 

jg: gr what do you think? 

gr: covered by cp that says retain user focus. we are not specific as to
type of content. useful to extend to any media. user configuration is the
key to this. may be
time I need to return exactly where I left off. 

mq: not an accessibility issue 

gr: general usability issue 

jg: some run in the background, 

dp: implementation of streaming content would be impossible 

gr: right not streaming (live), that is comming from a file. 

da: what if have frames, video frame and question frame. if focus controls
the video then video stops when answereing questions. 

dp: frames are usally not part of history, this is a configurable situation. 

jg: origionally this was an orientation issue, restore orientation. don't
know of similar function in media player, describes scenario, 

ja: digital talking books can bookmark audio stream 

dp: not mechanism 

da: media player.. 

jg: player called in response to an event, can you browse media sources using 

gr: has a word processor history mechanism of last x number of sites visited. 

jg: consensus? discuss on list. review history mechanism, can you return to
place in non-live stream when returning to a stream. does the player do
this or need to
do this. is this a P1 in that situation. 



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, 10 February 2000 16:42:42 GMT

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