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

AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 1 march 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:11:25 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000229120803.00a52ce0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Telecon for March 1st, 2000 

Chair: Jon Gunderson 
Date: Wednesday, March 1st
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038

Agenda

Review Open Action Items (see detail list below)

Announcements 

   1.Update on FTF meeting in April 

Discussion 

The following list of issues includes proposed resolutions for most of the
issues.

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

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

Proposed Resolution: 

Full read access DOM and write to UI controls:

Checkpoint 1. Provide programatic read access to content by conforming to
DOM level 2 core and HTML modules and exporting... [Priority 1] 

Checkpoint 2. Provide programatic read and write to author supplied user
interface controls by conforming to DOM level 2 core and HTML
modules and exporting... [Priority 1]

Other checkpoints affected: Requires modifying new checkpoint for general
access to read only , instead of read write

------------------------------------
Issue 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 

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

Proposed Resolution for MM:
1. Only for synchronized MM 
2. Includes both space and time

------------------------------------
Issue CR#195 (Candidate Recommendation): Problems understanding checkpoint 1.5 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#195

What does this checkpoint mean:

   1.Is this user interface question? 
   2.Is the an API question? 
   3.Is this both? 

Does this require text equivalents or not?

Are text equivalents the best we can do right now?

Does this mean that if you make a sound you do something else too and if
you do something visually you also make a sound?

Currently Proposed Resolution Options:

Option A: Checkpoint 1.5 Ensure that user agent-initiated messages to the
user (e.g., informational messages, warnings, error messages, etc.) are
available through all output channels supported by the user interface. 

Option B: Checkpoint 1.5 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text user
interface component available to the user through the user interface. 

Note: This does not require descriptions of images or sounds, but a
redundent text message of the information the graphic or sound was trying to
convey to the user. 

------------------------------------
Issue CR#196: It is unclear to developers how they know they conform to
Checkpoint 6.2: Conform to W3C specifications when they
are appropriate 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#196

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Change wording "Use and conform to W3C specifications when they are
available and appropriate for a task." 
   2.Add note: Implementing one accessible format 
   3.Add techniques: From ATAG "Specifications that become W3C
Recommendations after an authoring tool's development cycles permit
     input are not considered "available" in time. " 

------------------------------------
Issue CR#197: Not clear with the scope of user preferences is in Checkpoint
10.7 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#197

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Narrow scope to style and input configuration 
   2.Add technique: Accessible browser project portable configuration file 

------------------------------------
Issue CR#198: How much information needs to be provided to satisfy
Checkpoint 8.4 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#198

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Make current list of items is minimum requirement, plus any that we
may have missed 

------------------------------------
Issue CR#199: Poor wording of checkpoint 10.8, it is not clear what the
requirement is to improve accessibility 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#199

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Ensure that the most frequently used functions are the most easily
activated in the default configuration. 
   2.Add technique: Show operating system conventions 

------------------------------------
CR#200: Checkpoint 5.5 on timely exchanges, developers not unclear on how
they know they have satisfied this checkpoint

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#200

Proposed Resolutions: 

   1.Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints 
   2.Ian's pending proposal 

------------------------------------
CR#201: 5.5 "Ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely manner"
should be a priority 1 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#201

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints 
   2.Ian's pending proposal 

------------------------------------
CR#202: User agent configuration to render NOFRAMES content 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#202

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.HTML 4.0 Specification issues 

------------------------------------
CR#204: Add collated text to Checkpoint 2.6 and 4.8 or create a new
checkpoint at lower priority 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#204

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Add collated text to checkpoints 

------------------------------------
CR#205: Timing issues related to AT missing or not being synchronized to
document changes 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#205

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints 
   2.Ian's pending proposal 

------------------------------------
CR#206: Precise specification of what parts of DOM are required 

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#206

Proposed Resolution: 

   1.Add W3C DOM level 2 Event Module at Priority 2 

=============
Open Action Items

   1.IJ: Find out whether rendered content from style sheets appears in the
document source. 

   2.IJ: Propose checkpoint to address event notification timing issue 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12.RS: Take timely and synchronization issues to WAI PF. Get input from
MSAA developers as well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian 


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 Tuesday, 29 February 2000 13:13:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:52 GMT