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

raw telecon minutes 11/30/00

From: Kitch Barnicle <barnicle@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:14:37 -0600
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001130130636.00af99d0@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Chair : Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Kitch

Attendance
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
David Poelhman
Mickey Quezner
Ian Jacobs


Regrets
Jim Allen
Charles McCathie-Neville
Eric Hansen

Announcements

    1.Next UA FTF meetings in Boston on 1-2 March 20001

Review Action Items (see details below)

HB: 1. Harvey has posted material to the list, regarding NISO/DAISY
AG:  2. Al Gilman sent link to list regarding point of sale topic.
MQ: 3. Link to current implementation 
report  http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-IMP-20001113/  for review of 
materials submited by Mickey Quezner.

Other topics:
We should be getting comments from WCAG soon.

Discussion

    1.Issues list changes related to additional last call comments

    2.Issue #392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#392

JG: is there an implementation of mouse emulation  (e.g mouse over) with 
keyboard. For example, using JAWS can you tell if there is an event 
associated with an element.
GR: when on element, can query status bar for some information
JG: we need to show implementation for keyboard support for accessing 
pointer based events.
GR: need to trust the script and the integrity of the script. AT would 
still be guessing what would happen
JG: But could AT tell you that there is an event associated with this 
element, not necessarily what the script will do
JG: we would like to be able to avoid going to CR
IJ: a question remains as to whether our list of active elements should 
include things with associated mouse events

Action IJ: 1.4 needs to be re-written in light of changes in checkpoint 1.1

Action Working Group:  look for user agents that implement mouse events 
like mouse over with the keyboard

Action: JG to ask PF people, especially Rich, about this issue


    3.Issue #393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other 
programmatic means.
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#393


JG: related to issue 326 - this issue being addressed in association with 
issue 326

Resolved: issue being addressed in response to  issue 326

    4.Issue #394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided 
through a source view
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394

IJ: if we can provide guidance may be able to satisfy his issue.
JG: while source provides access to content, other techniques would allow 
more efficient querying of information
IJ: don't know if much guidance is necessary, do what the specs tell you, 
if not could end up rendering source
JG: 6.2 vs. 2.1 ?

JG: we want all content available through UI
IJ: we cannot give a precise line here, first follow specs, then use 
conventions

IJ: propose we say when you implement specs according to 6.2, then you 
should render according to these specs, when specs do not exist may render 
source,  UA's could use heuristics to do a better job then source.

IJ: could re-write note ..to say use specs

IJ: We may want  to have a section on security issues, acknowledging that 
we know of some open issues regarding security but haven't addressed them 
in this document.  We could go to the director or coordination group. The 
group needs to decide how to approach this issue. Ian will create a new section

GR: should reference digital signature work.

IJ: UA should be able to conform, despite limitation imposed by 
security/copyright issues

IJ: if some user has access to material, every user should have access. It 
may be that no user has access to source for example due to security issues.

IJ: Client side timing.  For server side timing the user agent could inform 
the user that i'm about to time out, i need an extension


Action IJ: proposed text in 2.1
Resolved: Ian will provide new note for clarification. Working group can 
comment on note.


    5.Issue #395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#395


IJ: addressed by checkpoint 2.3. But, HTML has longdesc and alt. How do you 
know which to render.

IJ: Put a place holder in 3.8, specs may tell you what the best place 
holder is

IJ Proposal: A) make 3.8 consistent with 3.2 in its use of the term 
placeholder B) both 3.8 and 3.2 could cross-referenced to  2.3, for example 
render an equivalent it its place and add comment that some configurable 
would be desirable regarding which place holder to render

Discussion regarding whether 3.8 applies to content and chrome or just 
content. Original intent of group was that this checkpoint apply to 
author-supplied content.

IJ: proposal - add a p1 checkpoint to turn of blinking in the user interface.
JG: could be a problem defining what is blinking

Action IJ: add a note to 5.8 - content requirements may also apply to user 
interface


    6.Issue #396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#396

IJ: some may be identified by specification

Resolved:
a) we are not including a general resizing requirement in UAAG 1.0
b) conformance to some specs requires resizing (e.g. SVG)
c) conformance to some specs also requires override of author supplied info 
(e.g. CSS)

Action IJ: mention the second and third comment above in section 1.2


    7.Issue #397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to 
define "system colors"
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#397


Resolved: We mean range of colors supported by the system.
Action IJ: Ian will work on editing the document to clarify the issue.


    8.Issue #398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not 
recognized as style"
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#398

IJ: what we mean, some content is meant for stylistic purposes, and has a 
lower priority then other content.  We need to clarify the wording and make 
sure we have rational to show that the style is less important than the 
content.

Action IJ:
a) clarify "recognize style"
b) need more rational - refer to WCAG - style less important than other content
c) add note 4.5 - give example of multimedia content that can be recognized 
as style


    9.Issue #399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this?
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#399


Note: We have to make the applicability clause clear. It  has to do with 
controlling certain formats for this checkpoint.  [Ian, I'm not sure if i 
captured this correctly.
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 16:05:07 GMT

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