- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:07:12 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
12 October 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Present:
Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Gregory Rosmaita,
Mickey Quenzer, David Poehlman, Kitch Barnicle, Eric Hansen,
Charles McCathieNevile, Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Tim Lacy, Jim Allan, Harvey Bingham
Absent: Denis Anson
Next meeting: 19 October
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0062.html
Minutes of previous meeting 10 October:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0055.html
Announcements
1.FTF meeting update and call for participation
MQ: I will probably attend by phone due to costs.
DP: I'll be commuting from my house every day and
have room to put someone up.
JG: We have 9 confirmed (three by phone),
3 regrets, and 3 maybes.
DP: Are there any people we haven't heard from?
JG: Rich and Denis.
DP: Will AOL participate?
JG: No confirmation yet.
MQ: I'll talk to someone from VidPie.
Resolved: No objections to having a meeting with 9 people.
2.Review list of invited last call reviewers
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/09/reviewers-last-call-2.html
JG: Still looking for multimedia companies.
Discussion
2.Proposed Simplification of Checkpoint 8.7
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0060.html
Resolved: Adopt proposal.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0060.html
8. Delete G9
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0070.html
Resolved:
- Move 9.1 to G4
- Move 9.2, 9.3 to G8
- Recycle G9 prose
9. Delete document source
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0072.html
GR: I think that people might have an easier time understanding
"document source view".
EH: One possibility is to say in the document object view
definition that people may call this a "document source view".
MQ: Perhaps too close to "document object model".
IJ: I would argue that fewer terms will make it easier to use.
CMN: Given that "view source" and "show source" is a well-known
name of a feature, I recommend with not defining it and
leaving it there.
IJ: What's the difference between document source view and
document object view?
CMN: The document object is constructed from the source.
The common understanding is that source view means
what came over the wire.
EH: I think that with "document source view" in the UA Guidelines,
there's a conceptual mismatch between checkpoint and the
Note. The Note talks about source, the checkpoint talks about
document object.
IJ: Document object includes source.
IJ: Another proposal is to just use "document object view"
and talk about variance (e.g., from doc source to more than
that).
EH: And say that there is value in providing a view of the source.
Resolved:
- Leave "document source view" in 2.1 and in glossary
- Add to definition of "document source" that it's a subset of
the "document object".
3.Definition of User Agent
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0058.html
Amended:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0065.html
GR: There's a difference between a composite user agent and
one that conforms natively.
DP: Works for me. Makes the guidelines easier to use.
GR: All the components of a composite claim must meet the
requirements that apply to it.
/* Discussion that claims are made about a collection of things */
Resolved will dissent from GR and MQ:
- Accept proposal and amended proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0058.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0065.html
4.Scope, Intro, Inside/Outside Analysis
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html
IJ: Summarizes EH's proposal, and EH and IJ prioritization
of some topics.
MQ: My problem with a list of things we aren't going to talk
about is that some people may feel left out.
DP: Fix that by pointing those readers to relevant sources
of information.
GR: On the assumption that we're dealing with WCAG-conformant
content: people have not been waiting for this after three
year.
CMN: I don't think that this document assumes in all cases
WCAG-conformant content.
GR: The UA needs to override shortcomings.
JG: Most of the checkpoints don't depend on WCAG, but we
built some of them based on WCAG requirements.
CMN: Does it hurt us to put in "dependency on WCAG-conformance
client"?
GR: The first principle is do no harm.
EH: I think that we have made a number of assumptions along the
way in order to make the scope of the document manageable
as well as to meet accessibility requirements. If we don't
state that we expect WCAG-conformant content, then it opens
the floodgates of potential repair issues. It makes us
more responsible for repairing bad authoring. I think there
are valid reasons not to tackle that.
IJ: We have not emphasized repair functionalities.
CMN: I think that it's not true that we've avoided repair
in content.
GR: Document not useful if it expects all conformant content.
CMN: To say that this document assumes wcag-conformant content
will undermine its credibility.
IJ: I propose:
- Designed with some WCAG requirements in mind
(to promote authoring of conformant content).
- Looks forward (e.g., conformance to specs required)
- There are some repair requirements built-in.
CMN: I think this is editorial...
EH: Are we satisfied with the amount of repair that we
have in this document?
DP: I'm hesitant to soften the wcag language because we
want to promote wcag-conformant content.
Resolved to add scope prose along the lines of:
- Designed with some WCAG requirements in mind
(to promote authoring of conformant content).
- Looks forward (e.g., conformance to specs required)
- There are some repair requirements built-in, and
techniques as well.
Who has read the 29 Sep draft: IJ, CMN, JG, EH, DP.
Resolved: Editors will filter out editorial proposals in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0038.html
5.Repair Text, Definitions, Etc.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0045.html
Resolved:
- Adopt EH's 1.5 wording.
- Repair content could be in the DOM, but not required. No
statements about whether DOM repaired before-load/after-load
etc. [
- Adopt suggestion 4 (2.6: do not generate repair text).
- Add support, implement, and conform to the glossary.
GR: I think that 2.6 should include a requirement to generate
repair content when configured to do so.
DP: If the author specified empty alt, then there may be
something behind it.
Resolved:
- Add configuration requirement to 2.6 so that the
UA generates repair text à la checkpoint 2.5. (repair).
6.Conformance Claim and keyboard API support
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0028.html
RS: Due to target of this document, no problem with this.
CMN: I don't see that this is necessary.
Resolved:
- Even if there isn't a standard system keyboard API,
the subject must implement some keyboard API.
Action CMN: Send comments about whether a keyboard API
always necessary.
7.Revised Abstract
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0032.html
Other proposals:
10. APIs standard?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0078.html
Decision to go to last call:
IJ: Note that Tim Lacy has already agreed to go to last call.
Agreed: CMN, EH, DP, KB, GR (with reservations but don't want
to hold up the process), JG, RS, IJ, MQ.
Resolved: The WG agrees to go to last call with modifications
to the 29 September draft indicated above.
Completed Action Items
1.IJ: Propose text for a note explaining the implementation issues
related to providing user agent generated content through the DOM
Status: Done in techniques document, but I will check.
4.JG: Talk to Ian about adding a column to the impact matrix for
supporting authors in creating accessible content
GR: Most authoring tools let you look at sample rendering.
EH: Sounds like validation and repair. We don't have much about
that today.
IJ: I think that impact matrix should only say "this checkpoint
is meant for this type of disability".
Status: Dropped.
Open Action Items
2.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and
number of items in search
Status: Not done.
3.RS: Send information (if you can) about tagging for information
for
improving performance
Status: Unknown.
5.EH: Will propose text to be added to the guidelines document to
discuss the scope and the limitations of the current document
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0038.html
6.TL: Check with Microsoft Multi-media group to find a reviewer
Status: Unknown.
7.TL: Check to see if MS can send representative to FTF meeting
Status: Unknown.
8.GR: Contacts for Dolphin for reviewing UAAG.
Status: Not done. Intend to call today.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 16:07:15 UTC