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

Raw minutes from 24 July UA teleconference.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:43:23 -0400
Message-ID: <397C9C5B.35D04690@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
24 July 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference
[Exceptional teleconf]

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Kitch Barnicle
 Gregory Rosmaita
 David Poehlman
 Rich Schwerdtfeger

 Mark Novak
 Jim Allan
 Eric Hansen
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Tim Lacy
 Dick Brown
 Jim Allan

 Harvey Bingham
 Mickey Quenzer

Next meeting: 27 July.
  Regrets for August: Jim Allan
Agenda [1]

  0. Issue 288: Min requirements only in checkpoints?

  GR: Obviously we have to be careful in our choice of minimal 
  JG: The problem I have with ATAG's ideas of distributing information
  is that developers have to look further. UAAG will make it easier
  for developers to know what they have to do.

  Resolved: Yes, we will (and have adopted since the 7 July
  draft) adopt this proposal.

  1.Issue 257: Minimum requirement for checkpoint 10.4: Allow the user
    change the input configuration. [Priority 2]

   JG: Single-step allows modifier keys, single-command does not.

   Action IJ: Come with up clearer terminology.
   (e.g., "Direct" means you don't have to go through space, but you 
   may use more than one command to get there.) What does single mean
   in the voice realm? Single word (what about I18N here??).

   Refer to JG's proposal:

   GR: Same issues we have for accesskey: cascade required? 
   warning or notification when customized configuration conflicts
   with OS bindings? I want to make sure that developers note
   the relationship between various input reconfiguration checkpoints.

   KB: What is reasoning behind the "3-step to 1-step" mapping?

   JG: It helps us avoid an explicit list.

   IJ: I think the choice of 3-step to 1-step is arbitrary
   but doesn't reduce the scope sufficiently.

   JG: At some point, I had proposed deleting 10.4.

   KB: I'm nervous about the configuration issue; I'm not sure
   that users will know how to use the configurations.

   DP: I have some problems with JG's proposal due to number of

   RS: I tend to agree with Kitch. I want to see something

   GR: I think we should allow any configuration, basically.
   Since the user knows best their needs.

   GR: With voice input, how do you distinguish 1 command from three

   IJ: Should we talk to voice browser WG?

   GR: Perhaps thinking in terms of voice would help us understand
   our scope here.

   How many people think every function (from a predefined
   set) should be available for rebinding:
    KB: I like the idea, but I see the potential UI nightmare.
    DP: I agree with Kitch.
    RS: I agree with Kitch.
    GR: I don't think we can delete 10.4 if 10.5 has a limited
        set of functionalities associated.

   RS: Excessive configurability doesn't imply accessibility. 
   GR: I think that we should be considering what is configurable
   first, not what is currently done today. 10.4 says that input
   configuration may need to be changed. I don't see how you can
   get around saying the whole range of functions available.

   DP: We need to ensure that people can return to the default 
   easily (this is covered by 10.7).

   JG: Does this mean that you want a built-in macro feature?
   RS: Refer to what's required by virtue of 1.3 (through the keyboard
   API). I think that we are requiring essentially macro operations.
   If it takes you 5 steps in the UI, you need to be able to get at
   all of them through keyboard sequences. 

   RS: Maybe we can say that the UA is required to support no more
   than three keys in a sequence. 

   IJ: I think that we need to consider that something is
   "single-stroke" when you can enter a particular mode. For 
   example, you enter "table" mode and you have 20 single-keys
   We could say for 10.5 that these functionalities have to be
   available in any input mode.

   IJ Proposal: Allow reconfiguration of default input configuration.

   JG: We said that this checkpoint was not about changing UAs
   conflicting with default input settings. We still need to
   promote use of standard controls. I don't think you can rebind
   how standard windows controls are activated.

   RS: Then let's limit reconfiguration to those functionalities
   where there's not a standard binding in the operating system.

   RS: I think that people who need keyboard access would not want
   to alter standard bindings.

    - Reconfiguration must not be required for standard system
      controls (i.e., where there are system conventions for bindings).
      You can have additional controls for doing something (e.g.,
    - GR: Note that there's a problem with accesskey since system
      bindings are overridden in some browsers by specified
    - Reconfiguration is only required for those functionalities with
      a binding in the default UA input configuration. This applies
      to like input methods (e.g., keyboard bindings can be remapped
      to other keyboard bindings). The minimal requirement for 
      remapping is modifier key and single key.

   Action IJ: Write a proposal to the list for revised 10.4.

   GR: I think that 10.4 and 10.5 should be the same. That we 
    get rid of the list of important functions and require the UA
    to allow single-key access to everything you can do through
    the keyboard by default.
   Action GR/IJ: Talk about 10.4 and 10.5 offline.

Completed Action Items

   10.KB: Propose new wording for natural language checkpoint

Open Action Items

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

    2.IJ: Add to note on checkpoint 8.1 the important cases that this 
checkpoint must provide information through the user interface

    3.IJ: Update document with resolutions from 7/13/00 telecon

    4.IJ: Check usage of multi-media in document

    5.IJ and EH: Propose definitions for what "presentation" and content

    6.IJ: Formalize distinctions between "one step" and "one command" 

    7.EH: Send comments on definitions of "primary content" to the list
consideration by the group

    8.GR: Re-examine the orientation checkpoints and see whether they
be clarified to account for control of rendering of audio (and possibly 
other content) on

    9.HB: Review note for checkpoint 8.1

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 24 July 2000 15:43:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:27 UTC