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

MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 30 March 2000

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:57:32 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000331085625.00ae54f0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
Kitch Barnicle 
Mickey Quenzer
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Dick Brown
David Poehlman 
Mark Novak

Regrets: 
Harvey Bingham
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Hans Riesebos



Action Items

Open Action Items

   1.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 

   2.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 

   3.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11 

   4.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 

   5.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in
the techniques document. 

   6.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 

   7.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 

New Action Items 

   1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. (No
deadline.) 

   2.CMN: Send a proposal to the list related to a note for Checkpoint 2.1
clarifying UI verses API access 

Completed Action Items

   1.IJ: Ensure that UA FAQ makes the EO WG agenda. 

   2.IJ: Reuse questions from ATAG FAQ. 

   3.IJ: Coordinate other longdescs for techniques documents with JG. 

   4.JG: Get MN and RS to review Appendix 5. 

   5.GR: Talk to Paul Schrader at AFB. 

Minutes

Next teleconference: 6 March

Next face-to-face: 10-11 April

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0533.html 

0) Ian comments on document:

- Integrated some comments from Mark Novak. 
- Wrote long descriptions. 

IJ: I will publish a new one after the face-to-face. 

1) Review Open Action Items

1.IJ: Ensure that UA FAQ makes the EO WG agenda. 
Status: Done. 

2.IJ: Reuse questions from ATAG FAQ. 
Status: Done. 

3.IJ: Coordinate other longdescs for techniques documents with JG. 
Status: Longdescs finished. 

4.JG: Get MN and RS to review Appendix 5. 
Status: MN Done. 

5.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 

6.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 
Status: Not done. 

7.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11 
Status: Not done. 

8.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 
Status: I'm reviewing the whole document, will send comments. 

9.GR: Talk to Paul Schrader at AFB (re: testimonials). 
Status: Done. He will contribute one. And, as editor of "Access World"
magazine, can accommodate an article on the Guidelines. 

IJ: If you speak or write on behalf of W3C, please contact me (as part of
the W3C Comm Team). 

10.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in the
techniques document. 
Status: Not done, but obviously HPR and JFW ones. 

DP: Note that there is a multimedia presentation at the JFW Web site. 

11.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 
Status: I sent comments on documentation, but others not done. 

12.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 
Status: Not done. 

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: Six registered today. Deadline for registration 5 April. 

JG: Al Gilman may come. Rich may come. 

DP: I still don't know. 

MN: I still don't know. 

DB: Don't know if Tim Lacy will attend yet. 

3) Proposed recommendation update 

IJ: Still no "no" reviews. One comment on post-REC tracking of user agents.
I request that this be discussed at the face-to-face. 

3) FAQ questions 

JG: This is now in the hands of the EO, who discussed this at the
face-to-face. 

CMN: I was at the EO meeting. They wanted more general questions, and came
up with a bunch. Wendy and Chuck Letourneau took minutes. 

JG: At CG meeting, Judy made it sound like EO would take care of the
questions. 

CMN: For ATAG, we sent some stuff to EO and they dealt with it. In the end,
I think just Jutta and I verified that nothing was drastically wrong. 

JG: I don't know whether we need two sets of FAQs (for media, for developers). 

CMN: I think it would be a useful document to have for developers. Useful
for new readers of the guidelines. 

IJ: Yes, an executive summary, for example. 

Action IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers.
(No deadline.) 

4) Implementaton Report 

IJ: I still intend to talk to Tantek Çelik about IE on the MAC. 

DB: I will continue to pursue my MAC contact. 

JG: No information from Denis on this. I have an iMac now and could do a
run through the Guidelines. 

5) PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207 

JG: Question raised by Phill Jenkins about whether a source view would
satisfy checkpoint 2.1. 

JG: My understanding is that the user be able to choose which content it
wants rendered. 

/* IJ reviews definitions of content and rendered content */ 

IJ: We've discussed 2.1 recently and decided not to reduce to through the
UI only. Instead, added a cross-link to Guideline. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0426.html 

CMN: Haven't we discussed before whether source was sufficient access? 

DP: I think it isn't, since you're required to read the markup. 

CMN: In ATAG, the tool is supposed to provide access to content through the
UI. 

IJ: I believe from the previous discussion on this that we did not want to
make this a stronger requirement to make available all content for humans
through the UI (at some point). In the 2 March teleconference (as I
recall), we did not want to make such a change. 

JG: Do our other checkpoints make the source view irrelevant if its not
accessible? Do you satisfy 2.1 with one feature, or with a set of features? 

IJ: Sounds like the "alternative equivalent page" case. 

CMN: For HTML, you have to provide access to text content of elements,
images, titles, etc. Those things collectively are what you must provide
access to. You could have 39 powertools that work together, or offer a
general solution. 

GR: I don't think that 2.1 is not satisfied by a source view. 

CMN: I agree. 

JG: Then what does satisfy this? 

IJ: I proposed that 2.1 be clarified to be "through the UI" and this was
rejected. 

JG: Is 2.1 a collection of a bunch of things? 

IJ: I think that the source view and and question of 2.1 through the user
interface are orthogonal. 

CMN: 
- I think 2.1 is the general case. (There are other specific checkpoints
for access to particular types of content). 
- A source view and the rest of the UI are different kinds of beasts, and
we need to make that clear in the document. 
Process suggestion: We flag this as an important issue on the mailing list
and we attempt to find there further input to have a clear resolution. Say
explicitly that resolution will come from list input. 

DP: What would we leave out by reducing scope of 2.1 to user interface only? 

MN: Difficult for me to draw the line. 

KB: I don't understand the trade-off. Does all content meant for humans
mean through all modalities? 

MQ: The phrase "meant for humans" is not explicit enough. 

CMN: I think 2.1 should be limited to human-intended content through the
UI. But the implication is: whether you require a source view. I can use a
source view for information, but not all users can read markup. Having a
source view is valuable, but using the source view as the way that you are
expected to get information intended for people is not sufficient. 

DB: I think that there's a possibility (notably in the future) for markup
meant for devices so that when rendered, provides content. 

IJ: That's what scripts do today (e.g., generate a list of numbers). 

CMN: Non-renderable information is the sort of thing that a source view is
reasonable to use to provide access (for skilled users). Stuff that's intended
to be rendered should be rendered for humans. 

DP: I like having a source view available as a coder. 

MQ: I think that we're saying is that the source view is not sufficient for
average users. 

CMN: It's not appropriate what is "renderable content". It's appropriate
(and may be a requirement) for making available machine-readable content. 

Proposed: A note that says "A source view is not sufficient for providing
access to content that is meant to be rendered for humans." 

DB: I have problems with this since there may content intended for people
but not for all user agents. Any kind of content can be considered renderable. 

JG: We're not asking all browsers to support speech. 

CMN: Longdesc is a good example of this. In the source, longdesc is a URI
(it's meant for machines). There's not requirement to expose the URI, but
there is a requirement to make available the content at the other end. 

JG: I'm concerned that if 2.1 stays as it is, a UA would not have to make
available an equivalent alternative. 

CMN: I propose to add to 2.1 a note: 
- For "renderable content", access must be provided through the user
interface. 
- All renderable content (subject to the applicability clause) must be
available to the user. 
- For content intended for machines, access to the user through a source
view is sufficient in some circumstances. 
(CMN: The implication is that the source view is different from a "canvas".) 
- Content that is available its "final form" (i.e., ready to view). 

IJ: Need to define renderable content and make sure that it's clear that
information doesn't have to be available all at once. 

CMN: That's covered by 2.5 

DB: What about multimedia content that the UA can't render? 

CMN: Covered by applicability. 

IJ: How does a UA dealing with generic XML distinguish content for humans
and content for machines? 

DP: I think this is still covered by applicability. 

CMN: I think the answer to IJ's question is work going on in schemas. 

KB: Are there any user agents that meet this checkpoint? 

IJ: Only if a source view counts: Amaya. 

CMN: PWWebSpeak handles longdescs. 

IJ: What about scripts? The script is meant for machines, but the content
is meant for humans. 

CMN: The UA doesn't know that. It does know that the script is meant for a
machine. 

IJ: While that's true, wouldn't you (in spirit) want access to that content? 

CMN: Yes, but this is an authoring issue: use NOSCRIPT. 

IJ: CMN, are you suggesting that a source view is a requirement for all
user agents? 

CMN: No. 

DB: I don't think that it's a requirement. You can't get a source view for
Word. 

/* Ian gets the door, Jon summarizes the situation */ 

CMN and IJ disagree on whether 2.1 say "all content must be available
through the user interface". 

Action CMN: Send a proposal to the list. 

Adjourned 15:34 ET 



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 Friday, 31 March 2000 10:00:05 GMT

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