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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 2 March 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:27:46 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000302152524.00a5aef0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
Kitch Barnicle
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Dick Brown
Denis Anson
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
Mark Novak
Charles McCathieNevile
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: 
Madeleine Rothberg

Action Items

Open Action Items

   1.IJ: Split checkpoint 5.1 (28 January Draft) into read and UI write as
stated in minutes 

   2.IJ: Add a cross-reference from 2.1 to 5.1 and say in 5.1 that this is
a special case of 2.1 

   3.IJ: Add techniques to checkpoint 7.2 for synchronous multi-media
presentation (space and time) 

   4.IJ: Ensure that techniques for checkpoint 1.5 talk about using status
bar to display message 

   5.IJ: Incorporate proposal for checkpoint 1.5 from minutes 

   6.IJ: Add rationale to Checkpoint 1.5: if you're deaf blind you might
need this (Braille display). 

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

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

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

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

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Update the document based on todays resolutions 

   2.DP: Send NN profile info. 

   3.CMN: Suggest some techniques related to the good bits of the DOM Level
2 event module (related to checkpoint on notification 5.4). 

Completed Action Items

   1.IJ: Propose checkpoint to address event notification timing issue 
     Status: cancelled 

   2.DB: See if microsoft can produce HTML version of their developer
guidelines
     Status: Discussed with Greg Lowney and is in process 

   3.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this? 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0248.html 

   4.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of
streamed text.
     Status: done, but no responses

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

Minutes

Next meeting: 9 March at 2pm ET

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0418.html 

1) Review of Open Action Items

1.IJ: Propose checkpoint to address event notification timing issue 
Not done, but discussions, canceled due to resolution in telecon 

OTHER IJ Actions in next draft 

2.IJ: Split checkpoint 5.1 (28 January Draft) into read and UI write as
stated in minutes 

3.IJ: Add a cross-reference from 2.1 to 5.1 and say in 5.1 that this is a
special case of 2.1 

4.IJ: Add techniques to checkpoint 7.2 for synchronous multi-media
presentation (space and time) 

5.IJ: Ensure that techniques for checkpoint 1.5 talk about using status bar
to display message 

6.IJ: Incorporate proposal for checkpoint 1.5 from minutes 

7.IJ: Add rationale to Checkpoint 1.5: if you're deaf blind you might need
this (Braille display). 

8.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints 
No info. 

9.DB: See if microsoft can produce HTML version of their developer guidelines 

DB: Status Done: Greg Lowney has wanted to get the docs into HTML. Asked
Webmaster to do so. 

CMN: Use "tidy" to clean up Word 2000 output. 
http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/ 

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

JG: JA says for next week. 

11.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this? 
MK: Done. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0248.html 

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

MK: I've sent mail, but received no replies. 

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

JG: MK will try to post for Friday. 

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

JG: MR will try to post for Friday. 

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

2) 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 

Resolved: 
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 a user agent's development cycles permit input are not
considered "available" in time." 

Action IJ: Implement this resolution. 

DA: This is basically saying: Use W3C, then system standards, then your own
accessible methods. "When they are appropriate" means "if there's a
straightforward way with a W3C spec, you should do this. 

KB: I have no problem with this wording and the accompanying note. 

3) 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 

Resolved: 
1.Narrow scope to that which is specified in the guidelines as configurable
(style and input config). 
2.Add technique: Accessible browser project portable configuration file 

IJ: Note that Netscape uses X resources, which can be used on any X-windows
enabled machine. 

Action DP: Send NN profile info. 

Action IJ: Implement this resolution. 

4) 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 

DP: How does a UA know the size? 

JG: Do a GET on the header? 

DA: Do you want this always for all links, or just be able to query the
link? Could be expensive to do if it's not query. 

DP: I think it is useful to have this available when the link is rendered.
Query/rendered should be configurable. 

CMN: I think we should specify "what's available to the browser" without
having to go get information from HTTP calls. Note that this also
depends on the linking mechanism. 

IJ: 
- What's in the markup (attributes, content) 
- What's the UA's state about the link. 
- External information it could get. 

IJ: Charles has proposed the first two types of info. 

DA: Seems reasonable as minimal information. 

JG: Who decides whether you satisfy the checkpoint? 

CMN: It's known since in spec or the UA knows this info. 

Resolved: 
- Change checkpoint text to be something like: "Make available
author-supplied and user agent state information about links." 
- Add technique to distinguish this info from fetched. (more than the
minimal requirement) 

Action IJ: Implement this resolution. 

5) 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 

Resolved: 
1.Ensure that frequently used functions are easily activated in the default
configuration. 
2.Add technique: Use operating system conventions to indicate configuration. 

DP: How do you verify easily? 

IJ: How did ATAG deal with this? 

CMN: There is subjectivity in this, but this is a reasonable person type test. 

DA: What are frequently used functions? Navigation, accessing pages, etc. 

Action IJ: Implement this resolution. 

6) CR#200: they know they have satisfied this checkpoint

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

Resolution Options: 

1.Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html 

2.Ian's pending proposal 

IJ: 
- Drop it. 
- Leave it as is. 
- Leave it as is with an example (note) relating to in process communication. 
- Comparable performance to what you get from scripts. 
JG: We don't know what that performance is. 
MN: But that performance level accepted in the industry. If we could get AT
performance with what scripting can do now... 
MQ: But hard to quantify the performance of scripts... 
- Distinguish static from dynamic? AT developers thought static just as
important. 

DA: I don't think we should drop it. 

CMN: I feel strongly it shouldn't be dropped. 

KB: Does this fit into the category of general accessible application design? 

IJ: Why is this problem different from a slow download. CMN: If the page
downloads and starts doing something while you're doing something,
you'll never know what happened. 

DP: Like playing your video tape before your television picture has appeared. 

JG: How about: "Use programming techniques that ensure a timely exchange of
information." The programmer can't do better than what's available
to the programmer/os. 

KB: Does this make it more verifiable? 

JG: Say clearly in a note that developers should be looking for the most
effective techniques. 

KB: To me this sounds like general programming advice that's not specific
to user agents. 

RS: I think it's smart to say that you want to avoid cross-process
communication. 

CMN: This is an implementation requirement. Our problem is expressing the
requirement in words other than examples. 

JG: Can we talk about it in terms of "conventions"? 

RS: The conventions of today are too slow. 

Resolved: Leave checkpoint as is and add an example note. 

7) 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 

DA: P1 for dynamic pages. 

RS: Also for large static docs. 

IJ: I oppose P1 for static, since information is still available. However,
for dynamic, problems if the rate of exchange of info is less than the rate of
change of the information. 

KB: But we allow users to stop dynamically changing pages. (P1) 

JG: Also, 2.2 

RS: MSAA may not have been used extensively in the past due to performance
issues. 

IJ: You fail 2.1 (access to all content) if you don't make available
content that is changing. This is already P1. 

CMN, RS, MN: I can live with this, though a sludgy way around this. 

Resolved: Add a note to 2.1 to clarify that it covers dynamically changing
content. 

8) 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 related to NOFRAMES rendering
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1 

IJ: Since 2.1 is not strictly through the UI, then making available through
an API sufficient. 

GR: Recall, that access to frame alt requirement was dropped for a note,
but the note no longer there: 

     Mechanisms for specifying alternative content vary according to markup
language. For instance, in HTML or SMIL, the "alt" attribute
     specifies alternative text for many elements. In HTML, the content of
the OBJECT element is used to specify alternative content, the
     "summary" attribute applies to tables, etc. In HTML, the NOFRAMES
element specifies alternative content for frames. The ability to
     access frame alternatives is important for users of some screen
readers and users with some cognitive impairments. 

Resolved: Ian will edit this and add to definition of alternative
equivalents for content. 

9) 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 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0343.html 

MK: If it's not synchronized, no problem. 

IJ: Is this more burdensome than a caption? 

MK: Same as caption. 

Resolved: Adopt Eric's proposal. 

Action IJ: Review Eric's proposal by Friday. 

10) 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 

Resolved: Refer to #200. 

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

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

MN: I and others have a number of concerns about this module. I think we
should leave out of this draft. 

CMN: I think it's tricky to put it in. There are good bits and not so good
bits. 

HB: I wouldn't miss it. 

DA: We may also be covered by 6.1 (available and applicable). 

Action CMN: Suggest some techniques related to the good bits (related to
checkpoint on notification 5.4). 

Resolved: Do not add the events module. 
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, 2 March 2000 16:27:15 GMT

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