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

Raw minutes from 2 November 2000 UAWG teleconference.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:41:12 -0500
Message-ID: <3A01D168.A0D15BB9@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
2 November 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

 Harvey Bingham, Mickey Quenzer, Eric Hansen,
 Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Al Gilman

 David Poehlman, Jim Allan, Gregory Rosmaita

Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger, Charles McCathieNevile,
        Kitch Barnicle, Tim Lacy

Next meeting: 9 November

Minutes of previous meeting 10 October:

1.User Agent FTF meeting update
 Registered to be there physically: IJ, JG, GR, HB, RS, DA, DP, EH
 By phone: TL, MQ, JA
 Require hotel rooms: IJ, JG, GR, HB, RS, DA, EH
 Action Ian: Reserve hotel rooms for folks.
2.Last call update

 - Nothing to the list.
 - Ian talked to Adobe
   Action JG: add these three issues to issues list.

 Action JG: 
    - Send reminder to chairs and to w3c-wai-ua. For chairs, point to
      initial announcement in chairs list. For w3c-wai-ua, point to
      initial announcement in w3c-wai-ua:
    - Send reminder (or announcement) to everyone else on this list:
      And, point to full initial announcement in ua list:

    Note: It looks as though some people not on UA list did not
    receive a last call announcement initially. However, the
    announcement has been on the home page since 23 October.
    Judy Brewer to send announcement today to WAI IG.

3.Implementation report

HB: I'll look at 3.
IJ: I'll be looking at implementations as well.

   Guideline 1. Support input and output device-independence.
   DP: not available

   Guideline 2. Ensure user access to all content.
   JG: not available

   Guideline 3. Allow the user to configure the user agent not to 
                render some content that may reduce accessibility.
                need reviewer

   Guideline 4. Ensure user control of styles.
   JA: not available

   Guideline 5. Observe system conventions and standard interfaces.

   Guideline 6. Implement specifications that promote accessibility.
                need reviewer

   Guideline 7. Provide navigation mechanisms.

   Guideline 8. Orient the user. need reviewer

   Guideline 9. Allow configuration and customization. need reviewer

   Guideline 10. Provide accessible product documentation and help.
                GR: not available

5.Issue #321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint

/* AG joins, CMN joins */

IJ: The problem is in the definition of equivalent. It has
    implications related to accessibility. The real issue, I believe,
    is not about 2.3 but the definition of equivalent. We proposed
    "alternative" because it includes "equivalent" and doesn't have
    implications about disabilities.

AG: You may have meant that, but you didn't write that. 
    Definition of equivalent is broken and needs to be fixed.
    I don't think we can close this today.

/* AG has to leave */

EH: A couple of pieces from WCAG that I tried to use are to:
 - Have a dfn of equivalency that makes UAAG 1.0 consistent with
   WCAG 1.0. Also, language from the WCAG definition of equivalency:
   Refer to WCAG: 
   "In the context of this document, the equivalent must 
    fulfill essentially the same function for the person 
    with a disability (at least insofar as is feasible, 
    given the nature of the disability and the state of
    technology), as the primary content does for the person 
    without any disability."

   If you drift too much from this definition, you break the
   relationship between UAAG 1.0 and WCAG 1.0 and possibly to
   things out of scope for UAAG 1.0.

JG: I think we need to focus on the disability part, not the
    more general scope required by "alternative" (e.g,. in
    other languages).

IJ: So implications of changing definition of equivalent:
    - Relationship to WCAG 1.0 needs examining.
    - Relationship to other terms may be broken.

EH: On the "mathematical" interpretation of equality: It's
still applicable here. You can refer to an elephant and
a horse as having an equivalency relationship if you limit
the scope of the attributes to being, e.g., they are mammals.

JG: Our main issue is that there has to be recognized
markup for the UA to be responsible for handling the

CMN: I don't think that it's necessary to restrict 
what we call "equivalency relationships" to those that
are for people with disabilities.

IJ: Are you arguing that our requirements should be

CMN: No. But I still think that the definition is too narrow.

IJ: Why increase the definition if there are no requirements
that benefit?

CMN: Missing a reference group: users of large print.

IJ: Yes, that is true: as defined in this document, equivalency
does not include a reference group requiring large print.
Let's expand the list of reference disability groups rather than
eliminating our assumptions.

EH: We need to think carefully about adding/substracing reference
groups because this is the definition that affects the scope of
WCAG 1.0, checkpoint 1.1. Note that the current definition is
only about pre-rendered content, not rendered content.

CMN: In principle, I agree. We are about ensuring access to
content for users with disabilities. In practice, I think that
our method of defining things is :

a) Deficient in current document.
b) Likely to be deficient if we attempt to define by list.

CMN: Proposed definition of equivalency: 
  - Delete equivalency target.
  - Change "two pieces" to "two or more pieces".
    IJ: It's easier to write binary relationships.
    CMN: But I think it's harder to talk about equivalents
         composed of several pieces.
    IJ: That can be covered by saying that an equivalent may
        be composed of several pieces.

IJ: There is no "direction" in the definition of equivalent. Where's
the direction?

CMN: Part of my problem is that that definition makes an
assumption about authoring...

IJ: No it doesn't. Text equivalent says nothing about author
intent, only about renderability and potential accessibility.

EH: Here's an example that touches on the issue of directionality.  A
sense in which content is bi-polar: there is a person with a
disability at one end, and a person without a disability at the other.

/* Eric gives example with different types of equivalency
  relationships. In one, the text is the equivalency target
  and a picture is an equivalent, e.g., deaf non-reader.
  In another example, the picture is the equivalency target
  and the text is the equivalent. But in the first case,
  the "picture equivalent" is not a text equivalent. But there
  is only a P3 WCAG 1.0 requirement for this.

  Note: there's no reason why we call one the target and one
  the equivalent. It makes more sense as written because of 
  how wcag 1.0 is written.

CMN: In markup, you sometimes have things that are explicitly
equivalents of one another (e.g., IMG and "alt" in HTML). In SMIL,
the equivalency relationship is not directly defined. It could be
inferred in a number of cases. The equivalency relationships are
not specified by the author. Can you capture the situation where
it's unambiguous which is the equivalent and which is the
equivalency target?

IJ: Is an equivalent assumed to be accessible to a user
without a disability?

EH: No such claim.

JG: Listening to this, I think that the definition of equivalent needs
to be bound to a disability need. Also, there doesn't seem to be a
compelling argument about using equivalent/equivalency target.

JG: To move forward, I think we may want to incrementally
add to what WCAG says and then let WAI solve the problem outside
of the UAWG. I think we should not try to have a definition of
equivalent that differs substantially from the WCAG 1.0 definition.
Having a broader definition is an issue for the WAI CG.
I don't think that we should change the definition on our

IJ: Is the issue closed? Will the WG entertain a 
proposed definition?

CMN: I'm in an interesting position. I'm a sometime
participant and also responsible for reviewing the document
for WAI PF and WAI ATAG. As a comment from PF, I would propose
to change the definition. I think this is an editorial point,

CMN: My meta-comment from PF: Groups say "we don't want to change"
all the time. If no WG wants to take the lead, nothing will change.

Action CMN: Propose a change to the definition for in one week.

6.Issue #322: The definition of the word element

Closed Action items

    1.DP: Review checkpoints in Guideline 1 for implementation

    6.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation

    7.JG: Review checkpoints in Guideline 2 for implementation

    9.EH and IJ: Propose new language for checkpoint 2.3

    Guideline 7:

    Guideline 5:

    8.JG: Send information to CG on interested people to work on
          (Eric, Harvey, Ian)

Open Action Items

    2.GR: Contacts for Dolphin for reviewing WCAG

    3.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation

    4.MQ: Review speech checkpoints for implementation information
    In progress.

    5.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 Thursday, 2 November 2000 15:41:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:28 UTC