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

Raw minutes from 10 October UA teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:25 -0400
Message-ID: <39E36401.4A8E3836@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
10 October 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Present:
 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Chair)
 Tim Lacy
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Eric Hansen
 Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets:

 Kitch Barnicle 
 David Poehlman

Absent:

 Jim Allan
 Rich Schwerdtfeger
 Harvey Bingham
 Mickey Quenzer

Next meetings: 12 October. Regrets TL.
  TL: If you don't here from me by 14 October, I'm ok to
      go to last call.

Agenda:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0042.html

Minutes of previous meeting 28 September:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0493.html

Review Action Items

Announcements

    1. FTF meeting update and call for participation
       16-17 November. 
          Confirmed: JG, IJ, DP, HB, JA (phone), probably 
                     someone from Microsoft, probably
                     someone from AOL
            Regrets: CMN, KB, Lake Rocca, Glen Gordon, Mark Novak
             Maybe : DA, HR, RS, AG, EH

       JG: No objections to having the meeting then.
 
      CMN: I could make a december meeting.

      Action JG and IJ: Ensure that we have enough people committed
      to attend the meeting. IJ put up meeting page.

      Action TL: Find out whether definitive yes from Microsoft.

    2. Taking measures to reduce spam

      IJ: I requested a change to the mailing list.

    3. XHTML 2.0 requirements to PF WG?
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0003.html

    4.Please review list of invited last call reviewers
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/09/reviewers-last-call-2.html
      Action GR: Request Dolphin review
      Action TL: Request Microsoft Multimedia group review

Discussion

    1.Last call scheduling issues

    IJ: Attempting to go to last call 19 October.

    GR: I have only gotten a copy of the document since Saturday. I
    doubt I will have a chance to review the whole thing by Thursday.

    Resolved:
        - Delete redundant parts of 10.5 w.r.t. 10.4.

    GR: Missing from this is a pass-through requirement when conflicts
        occur.

    JG: Pass-through is covered by AT.

    IJ: WCAG and ATAG has committed to last call review.

    3.Issue 318: Scaling vector graphics content like SVG
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0497.html
      Status: Looks to complicated to add any new information for this
version

    Refer to thread:
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0004.html

    JG: There are a number of complicated issues, and WCAG has just
    started to example SVG accessibility. I propose that we do not try
    to address this in UAAG 1.0.

    GR: At the Bristol meetings, we discussed SVG techniques and have
    some UA issues.

   CMN: I intend to send them to the UA list. I'll be dining with SVG
   people next week. I don't think we should specifically include new
   SVG requirements at this stage. However, I think we should go as
   far as we can in the existing document (techniques in particular).

   JG: We don't have SVG implementation experience. This makes it
   harder to "skip" Candidate Rec period.

   IJ: We don't have any requirement for non-text objects (e.g.,
   lines) outside of what you can do with style sheets.
   
   GR: Important to note that alt text needs to be stylable.
       Problems: control of size, clipping.    

   Resolved: 
     - Do not add additional requirements for SVG to UAAG 1.0. 
     - Mention SVG in note after checkpoint 4.1.

   JG: Anyone may submit SVG techniques for current checkpoints.

   EH: I think that it's important to document rationale for this
       decision, why out of scope.

   IJ: E.g.,

    1) We think that this is an important topic, but lack
       implementation experience.
    2) Some requirements are already covered.
    3) We haven't considered to date and we want to go to last
       call without opening a new topic at this point.

   4.Issue 319: Adding a GUI label for conformance
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0009.html

   IJ: I am afraid to use an acronym such as "GUI". GR has said
   he doesn't want to use "Graphical" as a label. What about "Basic"?
 
   JG: Tim, do you think such a label would be useful?

   TL: I am not sure whether an additional label is useful or not.

   Resolved: 
     - Add another abbreviation label "Basic":
                 Text, Color, Image, Animation
     - Adopt corrected lists of checkpoints from Jon

   5.Issue 320: Adding a checkpoint on ignoring position markup to
support 
     authors in creating content that transforms gracefully
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0008.html
     
     IJ: Would "break" HTML specifications, 

     JG: We have implementation experience.

    CMN: I think that this is an attempted repair functionality.
      I don't see the argument for making it a checkpoint.

     JG: Useful for people to test linearization of tables.

     GR: I would support such a requirement. I'd also suggest that
     that tables be deprecated in XHTML 2.0 (since presentation only).
     I think that this is useful for people who don't know about Lynx
     or who don't know about tablin.

     IJ, CMN: We disagree with the latter statement.

     TL: I don't think this functionality belongs in the user agent.

     CMN: As repair techniques go, this is not a great one. It would
     make more sense to include a table linearizer.
 
     Resolved: Resolved: Since there is not unanimity about such
     a requirement, and this issue wasn't raised in PR and Last Call,
     no new requirement.

     EH: We've had debates about whether linearized table should
     count as a text equivalent. I think it can be classed as an
     equivalent of some kind. I think we should include "linearized
     table" as a class of equivalent for tables.

     JG: That would be WCAG's responsibility.

     EH: I'm ok with not saying that it's a text equivalent. But
     an equivalent of some kind.

   6. IJ Proposed for 8.7: Delete "identifying 
     (through a standard interface where available" from 8.7. So it
     becomes "Provide a mechanism for highlighting the current viewport,
     selection, and focus."

     Action IJ: Send to list.

Open Action Items

    1.GR: Proposed repair checkpoints

    2.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and 
          number of items in search

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 14:46:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT