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

Raw minutes from 12 September (extra) UA Guidelines teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:37:38 -0400
Message-ID: <39BE77F2.FA33D0B6@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
12 September 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Jim Allan
 Harvey Bingham
 Dick Brown
 Tim Lacy
 David Poehlman

 Rich Schwerdtfeger
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Mickey Quenzer
 Eric Hansen
 Gregory Rosmaita

 Kitch Barnicle 
 Denis Anson

Next meeting: 14 September

Minutes of previous meeting 7 September:


   New charter draft:

   IJ: Heads-up about a particular sentence of the proposal:

    "The accessibility of mainstream user agents that support text,
     video, animations, and synchronized multimedia."

   IJ: Refer to related comments from EH:

1.Issue 297: Style vs. content and background sounds
  Ian's proposed resolution to 297:

  /* Ian summarizes proposal */

  JG: One question: do we need to indicate to the user which content
      has been generated by the UA?  
     I propose not a relative (new) checkpoint. I propose
     requiring at least level Double-A.

  DP: You don't need to know where it comes from.

  IJ: Are placeholder images available in the DOM? Or 
      do you get what the author has provided?

  TL: If you tell IE not to display images, and you ask to
      show the image, then IE doesn't rebuild the DOM. The 
      placeholder image is in the DOM only.

  Q: Should repair content, place holders in the subject
  of the claim be in the DOM (e.g., available to ATs).

  /* TL does experiments with turning of image support in IE */
  TL: MSAA says that:
    a) The object's role is a graphic provided by IE server.
    b) State is unavailable.
    c) Value is original URL of image that would be displayed
    d) Coordinates available.

  IJ: Another way of asking the question: does repair content
  need to be in the document object? 

  JG: I think that the main reason we are requiring the DOM
  is to provide ATs with the information provided by the author.

  TL: If you're walking the DOM and you see that the state of the
  image is unavailable, what you get on the screen is the same
  whether you've configured the UA not to display images or 
  whether the image is unavailable.

  IJ: Is what the UA doing in these cases more about user interface
  or is this <em>content</em> that needs to be available to 
  DP: I'm not ready to comment on which way this should go.

  /* David leaves */

  TL: The rest of the proposal seems reasonable. I don't have 
  any problem with it. There may be a node in the DOM for
  a background sound.

  IJ: Note that this applies to images (which we're used to),
  but also audio, video.

  TL: I think that for background sounds, you are still
  invoking media player, even though you don't get a user
  interface. The difference would be that on configuration,
  the media player's UI would be brought up.

  EH: Should the three-seconds be configurable?

  Of Ian's proposal:
  a) Adopt proposed changes to Guideline 3
  b) Adopt proposed changes to Guideline 4
  c) In last call, point people to three-second parameter and
     get feedback.

 Action IJ: Incorporate in next draft.

 However: raise a separate issue:
   Is content generated by the User Agent required to be in 
   the DOM, or is it part of rendering in the native UI only?

Open Action Items

    1.GR: Proposed repair checkpoints

Completed Action Items

    1.JG: Send announcement on extra telecon for 9/12/2000

    2.IJ: Repropose some of the checkpoints in Guideline 3 and 4 based
      today's telecon

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 14:37:39 UTC

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