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

Raw minutes from 16 March UA WG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:46:49 -0500
Message-ID: <38D14839.E19867CF@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
16 Mar 2000

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Dick Brown
 Denis Anson
 David Poehlman
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Harvey Bingham
 Mickey Quenzer

Regrets:
 Hans Riesebos

Absent: 

 Kitch Barnicle
 Mark Novak
 Marja Koivunen
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Rich Schwerdtfeger
 Jim Allan

Next teleconference:      30 March
     Regrets: Harvey

Next face-to-face:        10-11 April

Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0502.html

1) Review of Open Action Items: No open action items.

2) Announcements 

   1. FTF meeting 10-11 April 2000 at RFBD in Princeton, NJ
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/ua-meeting-rfbd.html

      IJ: Deadline for registration 5 April.
      MQ: I intend to go.

      DP, DA, DB: Don't know whether can attend yet. 

      JG: We would like to end the meeting at around 3pm
          on 11 April to allow people to catch flights. 

      GR: I think CMN is coming to the ftf.

   2. 23 March Telecon cancelled due to CSUN conference 

      Who is going to CSUN: GR, DB, IJ

3) Discussion 

   1. Proposed Recommendation update 

      IJ: We'll ping the AC at the 2-week mark.
      IJ: DB, ping your AC rep!

      DP: If a Member's review brings out problems, what
          do you do?

      IJ: Address them. Resolutions do not imply returning
          to CR or WD.

      IJ: Refer to section 2.4.4 for more information 
          about Member reviews.

   2. Press opportunities at Recommendation 

      JG: Need quotes!

      IJ: Send names of reps from organizations, Members
          to the mailing list for coordination with the
          Comm Team.

      Action GR: Talk to Paul Schrader at AFB.

   3. FAQ questions 

      IJ: Refer to thread 1 December.

      GR: For ATAG, mostly generated during WAI EO meetings
          where GR and CMN participated. 

      Question - "Will this change user agents overnight?"
      Question - "What is a user agent?"
      Question - "What is an accessible user agent?"
      Question - "How does assistive technologies benefit from
                  these guidelines?"
      Question - "When will this affect me?"
      Question - "What does it mean to conform?"
                  GR: A statement made in good faith by
                      a developer that they have satisfied
                      the requirements.
      Question - "Does W3C maintain a list of accessible user
                  agents?"
      Question - "How do I know that a user agent meets
                  the requirements of the Guidelines?"
      Question - "Why is the DOM important to this document?"
                  GR: Point people to DOM Level 2 intro.
      Question - "What can I do as a user to improve
                  user agent accessibility?"
                  GR: get people to do evaluations.

      JG: What about developer-oriented questions?

       Question - "Do I have to implement the DOM and
                   platform-specific standards?"
                  JG: DOM for content, others for UI.

      GR: The EO WG proposed the FAQ to the ATAG WG for review.

      Action IJ: Ensure that UA FAQ makes the EO WG agenda.
      Action IJ: Reuse questions from ATAG FAQ.

      MQ: We need a statement about why we're doing what we're going.

      HB: A paragraph at the beginning of the FAQ about the FAQ.

      /* Discussion of Java accessibility and Microsoft */
       
   4. Potential agenda items for ftf about "Life after Rec":

       1) Responsibility for UA Support page (from WCAG)?
       2) Support materials for ATs? Guidelines for ATs?
       3) Scope of next generation of guidelines? More XML?
          More UI things? More mobile things? 
       4) Should WG Track conforming user agents? Should WG
          keep list of conforming user agents? What can the
          WG do to help even if they don't track?
       5) Regularly scheduled ftf meetings (over, say, a year)?
          Specialized meetings to bring players into the
          WG?
       6) More on scripting

   5. Review of techniques document for areas of weakness 

      Action JG: Get MN and RS to review Appendix 5.
      
      IJ:
       1) Distributing the content generation to WG is a good thing.
       2) Format is tertiary.
       3) We'll use D-links (and title on the link) + longdesc.

      Action IJ: Coordinate other longdescs with JG.

      GR: Should we have auditory descriptions of images?

      HB: SMIL files for the techniques document?

      Action GR: Look into which checkpoints/techniques would
      benefit from sounds.

      Actions to review of particular sections:

      1) DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
      2) DB: Guidelines 3, 4, and 11
      3) GR: Sections 3.7 and 3.8
      4) DA: Guidelines 7 and 8
      5) DP: Guidelines 1 and 2
      6) MQ: Guidelines 9 and 10

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 429-8586
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 15:46:58 GMT

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