- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:11:22 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
17 August 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Present:
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Mickey Quenzer
Eric Hansen
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Tim Lacy
Dick Brown
Gregory Rosmaita
Regrets:
Kitch Barnicle
Denis Anson
Jim Allan
Absent:
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Next meeting: 24 August
Regrets for next meeting: Mickey
Minutes of previous meeting:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0232.html
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0241.html
Announcements
1.FTF meetings for WCAG and ATAG working groups in
Bristol, England in October
HB: Tentative EO ftf in October (In Ottowa)
2. Checkpoints resolved unless complaints: 2.3, 8.6, 7.2
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0251.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0252.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0253.html
3. Action IJ: Talk to Judy about UA ftf.
IJ: She's on vacation, so continue this.
Discussion
1.Issue 294: Native support and downloadable modules
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#294
Refer to JG proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0244.html
Refer to EH comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0254.html
JG: I spoke to Al Gilman, Denis Anson, Len Kasday about this
issue. My proposal is a result of that. People agreed that as long
as modules required to conform were documented, that would
be sufficient. Still need to encourage developers to provide
accessible browsers by default.
IJ: Model is (a) anyone can claim conformance
(b) encourage accessibility by default.
GR: I'm concerned that that's not sufficient. Importance
of accessible installation. I think that developers need to
provide facilities to install components. You need to ensure
that the way of getting and installing software is accessible.
EH: Chicken and egg problem.
IJ: I think that assertions about conformance are different
from operational aspects (installation, privileges, etc.).
EH: When you combine things into a compound UA (screen reader,
general purpose UA, etc.), then it follows that the requirements
of UAAG 1.0 apply.
IJ: The compound entity conforms as a whole, not independently.
EH: All the requirements apply to all the parts about which
the claims are made.
GR: I think that the means of getting software have to be
accessible as well as the software (and it's documentation).
If Vendor A relies on Vendor B, then it's incumbent on Vendor
A to ensure that Vendor B's stuff is accessible.
IJ: No, no dependencies like that! These are just claims.
/* GR still doesn't have access to the Internet */
IJ: Why this model promotes accessibility:
a) Allows developers to improve accessibility of deployed
browsers.
b) Allows AT developers to make claims.
JG: What are the parameters that make something obtainable
in an accessible manner?
GR: It needs to be accessible over the Web according to WCAG
requirements.
JG: So I hear that at least one form of the software must
be available in a WCAG-accessible form.
IJ: Current text in document:
"In order for people to use the user agent at all,
the installation procedure (and any subsequent software
update procedures) must be accessible according to the
guidelines of this document. For example, the user agent
must provide device-independent access and accessible
documentation of the installation."
IJ: Furthermore, "applicability" applies to all of the
components.
EH: Is it permissible to say "product A works with any
product that supports X".
IJ: I think for simplicity, you need to name by brand and
version, rather than generic claims.
IJ: Profiles by name? (e.g., conforms by default).
JG: I don't think that that's useful at this point.
EH: I think that composite user agents are the only way
you'll get conformance for the foreseeable future.
TL: I agree with the summary: from Microsoft's perspective,
we won't guarantee that we'll work with another UA. But we
do encourage, and see in the market, that certain screen readers
will say "we're optimized to work with IE 5.5". It's good
for MS to be able to say "We will work with any AT that works
with such and such and interface."
4.Issue 295: Repair functionalities required / relationship to
conformance to other specs.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#295
IJ: Two questions:
a) Should we delete 2.5, a repair checkpoint? (Priority 2).
b) If we don't delete 2.5, should we mark it as a repair
checkpoint?
TL: If you have UAs generating missing markup, you will result in
lazy authors. This could perpetuate poor markup.
JG: But they won't conform to WCAG, which is what is their
baseline.
EH: I'm concerned about it from a different standpoint: it's
presumptous to have a machine not under the Web content developer's
control trying to guess what the functionality is.
IJ: Refer to "altifier" in techniques.
GR: I think that this is mostly to make the user aware that
an object exists that has not been given an equivalent.
EH: I'm concerned that we call this a "text equivalent" if
it hasn't been provided by the author. Call it something else.
Also, should we indicate explicitly that this thing has not
come from the author? (i.e., that this is an annotation from
an agent that is not the user).
IJ Proposed:
a) Leave 2.5 as a repair checkpoint.
b) Allow configuration to generate or not.
c) If configured to generate, provide information to identify
that the content has been generated.
DP: "c" may be more than what users actually need. It doesn't
matter to me that I know whether the author provided it or not.
IJ: Is it important to accessibility to have "c", or just
usability?
JG: It is important to the user to go back to the author
and say "I need this fixed."
DP: I don't think notification of generation is an accessibility
issue.
/* DP leaves the call, but not in anger <grin> */
GR: Lynx has a universal setting for images:
Render generic placeholder. Or, you can ask for the filename.
I don't care that whether something was generated if I
get a page of filenames.
MQ: I don't need to know that it's generated.
IJ: At least three users have stated that identification of
something having been generated is irrelevant.
Resolved:
a) Leave 2.5 as a repair checkpoint.
b) Allow configuration for generation or not.
DP: I want to turn off generated alt text when I evaluate
pages.
c) Don't call the generated thing a text equivalent.
EH: Just say "supply the URI, element name, etc.)"
d) If object not included by reference, supply element name
as a place-holder.
e) Add a TECHNIQUE:
If configured to generate, provide information to identify
that the content has been generated, not provided by the
author.
TL: Is the generated thing the value of "alt" in HTML, for
example?
IJ: I don't think so, it's not what the author provided.
But how does the AT get it?
JG: The AT may generate whatever it wants based on missing
markup. The AT makes the same conclusion as the conforming
UA.
GR, IJ, TL, JG, DP: Yes.
6.Issue 302: Definition of "recognize" needs review.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#302
IJ: Recognize should probably include something about recognizing
what a script does. A UA should be responsibile for knowing that
a script is calculating a factorial, for example.
IJ: Does anyone want to take a stab at rewriting "recognize"?
IJ: What I mean is "you aren't responsible for worlds you can't
know about."
Recognize is:
a) Know something according to spec.
b) Know something according to volition by the UA
(e.g,. MARQUEE).
IJ: Note that "recognize" is part of 2.5 (and should be part of
2.4).
It's part of applicability to factor it out of checkpoints.
IJ: "Recognize" is really about "the UA has been programmed to
do this." You need to be able to identify text equivalents,
captions, etc.
JG: Important here is the part about the UA's <em>response</em> to
markup.
EH: The value of the term "recognize" is that it's a signal
to the reader. Not every text equivalent is properly identified.
IJ: Subtle point is scripts: you "know" javascript but not the
function of the code.
EH: Some concepts like "recognized by a machine" or
"understandable by humans" are very tricky since there are
varying degrees (is artificial intelligence required? no...).
We expect machines to be able to make some choices, e.g.,
generate missing text, you could even have a UA be able to
recognize a trend in a table. I don't want to rule out someone
doing something smart with complex data. Does all responsibility
lie with the Web Content author? Can we avoid saying in the
Guidelines exactly the limits of "recognize"?
EH: Recognition doesn't require deep inferences when evaluating
a script.
Action IJ: Repropose a definition of "recognize". Include some
information about scripting (distinguish opening window from
calculating a factorial).
3.Issue 293: Is the UA responsible for control of timed
presentations
created by scripts?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#293
JG: In the past, we've said that the UA is not responsible for
knowing everything about the results of a script.
/* JG leaves the call */
IJ: Looking at current 2.2:
2.2 For a presentation that requires user input within
a specified time interval, allow the user to configure
the user agent to pause the presentation automatically
and await user input before proceeding.
EH: Think of a testing application: you have three minutes to
answer a question, otherwise you must move on.
IJ: The question is, does 2.2 include presentations created
through scripts?
DP: It may be easier to say what is included in this checkpoint
rather than not included.
IJ: So what types of presentations do we mean?
DP: How are they generated?
/* DB leaves the call */
IJ: Note that there's an author responsibility: provide
content you can get out without relying on time. But the UA
could not, I think, in the general case automatically
provide an equivalent for all presentations that involve
time.
EH: Please look at my latest memo on the topic of applicability.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0254.html
No Resolution.
Open Action Items
1. IJ: Talk to Judy about UA ftf.
Completed Action Items
2.IJ: Propose two checkpoints to replace 4.16, they would have the
same techniques
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0246.html
3.IJ: Summarize the discussion of conformance issue from 8/10/00
telecon (Based on JG's proposal)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0245.html
5.HB: Review note for checkpoint 8.1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0205.html
Dropped Action Items
1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers.
(Will be done at a later date)
4.GR: Re-examine the orientation checkpoints and see whether they
can
be clarified to account for control of rendering of audio (and possibly
other content) on load.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2000 16:11:26 UTC