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

Raw minutes from 12 December 2000 UAAG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 16:02:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3A2FFB01.E168C4B0@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
12 December 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0373.html
Minutes of previous meeting November 30:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

Present:
   Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Charles McCathieNevile,
   David Poehlman, Tim Lacy, Mickey Quenzer, Jim Allan,
   Eric Hansen, Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets: 
   Kitch Barnicle, Harvey Bingham

Absent: 
   Rich Schwerdtfeger

Next meeting: 12 December
  Can attend: JA, IJ, JG, GR
  May attend: MQ, CMN
  JG: I will send out information abou this extra meeting.

=============
Announcements
=============

    1.Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001
      IJ: Details of plenary session (weds) on Advisory Board agenda.

==========
Discussion
==========

 1.Joint meetings with other WAI working groups at our next FTF in March

 JG: DOM, Mobile, CSS. UI accessibility requirements? APIs?
 JG: From PF face-to-face meeting earlier this week: accessibility
     implementation requirements. Related to checkpoint 6.1. Today,
     we point to Notes, but these haven't been reviewed by
     Membership. Proposal that each new spec include a separate
     section on accessibility features.

 IJ: Proposed - 
    a) Need to read their specs.
    b) Need to talk to Chairs. Time is precious, so we 
       need to get commitments from them to meet a specific
       times.
    c) If we meet with them ahead of time, we may have
       an easier time coming up with an agenda.

 MQ: We also need to see whether they have issues with us.

 IJ: That's what last call is supposed to do. 
  
 IJ: Advisory Board talked about cross-fertilization at the
 plenary week: people listening at other meetings. IPR and
 confidentiality issues.

 /* Ian notes that Philippe Le Hégaret is now chair of DOM WG */

 IJ: Write proposals to Chairs of WGs to schedule meetings.
 Mention in particular UI and API issues. Ask them what specs
 we should review in preparation.

 Action JG: Schedule face-to-face time with other WGs.

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

 IJ: I don't know that we have implementation experience for this
 checkpoint.

 JG: I spoke to someone from Gallaudet about this issue. She said the
 only technology she knew of was from ATI (the "all-in-one
 card"). Let's you put characters encoded in the video signal in a
 separate window and position that window.
 http://www.ati.com/

 JG: The other issue that came up earlier this week: most formatting
 for captioning seems to be proprietary. 

 IJ: I don't hear any new information here.

 JG: I think in a response to the reviewer, perhaps just clarify
 that this is for markup languages that support positioning.

 CMN: Support for captioning positioning is the same as support
 for CSS positioning. And there are plenty of implementations
 available.

 JG: I recommend that we talk to WGBH about implementation experience.

 Action JA: Review SMIL players to find out which ones support
 positioning of captions.

 Action JG: Talk to Cindy King about captioning.

 Action GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning.

 EH: What about the priority? The more the document is aimed at
 a wide range of UAs (e.g., those with small screens), this increases
 the likelihood of some content being obscured.

 Resolution: No change.
  - We don't have commitments from vendors to implement this.
  - We are looking for implementation experience (e.g., for SMIL).
  - Please note that if a format doesn't support positioning
    of captions, the UA doesn't require user control over the
    position.
  - We maintain the P1 requirement.

 Action IJ: Respond to Greg Lowney

 4.Issue #400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources 
   synchronized to play simultanously?
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#400

  IJ: The answer is that when sound not synchronized, global volume
  requirement suffices.  UA developers may implement independent
  control for all sources of audio (but minimal requirement is just
  for synchronized sources).

  Resolved: No change.
  
  Action IJ: Add a clarifying note to 4.11 that if you allow
  independent control of all sources of audio, you satisfy the
  checkpoint as well.

 5.Issue #401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a
separate
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#401

 GR: I think that an ancillary issue is that for UAs that don't
 support synth speech, allowing access to all of the speech engine
 falls under the rubrique of "do no harm". We don't want UAs to 
 cut out functionality.

 JG: Issue of a built-in speech engine interfering with the user's
 speech engine.

 Resolved:
   - This issue is subsumed by resolution of issue 328
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-328
   - We talked about the general topic of UAAG 1.0 requirements
     applied to the UI as part of issue 3.8, discussed at 30 
     November teleconf: 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html
   - Indicate in checkpoint 5.8 techniques the problem of 
     conflicts between synthesized speech engines - notably on 
     multitasking systems.
     Action JG: Propose text for the techniques document about
     synthesized speech implementation issues.

 6.Issue #402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., 
   for one wpm case)
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#402

 Resolved:
   - This issue is subsumed by resolution of issue 328
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-328

 7.Issue #403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of 
    author-specified speeds.
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#403

 IJ: The proposal is a checkpoint to ensure that the user can
 override author-specified speech speeds. Do people understand 4.12
 to include override?

 IJ: Is this an element-level override requirement or a global
 requirement?

 MQ: Speech that can come from other sources while you're using your
 screen access features.

 DP: Speech synths may be controlled within a document by embedding
 text commands in the content. Speech engines do whatever they're told
 to do in the source.

 JG: I think that author-specified element-level speech changes would
 be stylistic changes.

 GR: Two levels of granularity - what the hardware can do (manipulable
 through machine codes), and shortcuts that allow you to specify
 different rates for different documents.
 
 JG: Some control sequences hard-coded in content to control a
 particular speech engine.
 
 GR: That's like painting to the screen - can't be interrupted on the
 fly. 

 JG: More advanced user agents let you specify different rates for
 different windows, objects, content. 

 IJ: Do any speech engines today let users override author-provided
 control codes?
 
 MQ: No.

 /* Ian note that emacsspeak imlements ACSS, which allows user
   control on an element-level */

 IJ: User override of author-supplied speech rate suggests a
 content transformation.

 IJ: Seems like enabling user override is not a UA issue but
 a speech engine issue - if the speech engine doesn't allow it,
 or the format fed to the engine doesn't, then user can't do it.
 If the question is moved to the UA realm (e.g., in style sheets),
 then conformance covers our requirements.

 Resolved: No change to checkpoint.
   - If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech
     engine's functionality, not the UAs.
   - We don't require content transformations to strip them
     out before sending to the speech engine.

 Action IJ: Add technique to checkpoint 4.12 to make clear that:
  - This includes author-override if speech engine allows.
  - This includes whatever granularity offered by speech engine.

 8.Issue #404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement 
   implies big performance hit, reflow.
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#404

  IJ: Did we go too far with our minimal requirements in adding fonts?
  Remember that we discussed this as part of issue 353:
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-353

  IJ: What about low vision - is bigger font useful in this case?
  Who benefits from the font case?

  JG: A big selection might be disorienting (if repagination).
  I think that other characteristics of a font (e.g., underlining or
  bold) may be useful.

  JA: I've implemented this. Even with bold, there may be
  reformatting. I have concerns about the font requirement as well.

  JA: In Windows, you can control colors/fonts at OS level and
  UA inherits them.

  JG: Opera offers border as highlight mechanism.

  JA: I think that text decoration suffices for users with low
  vision. Color suffices for many users with low vision. It's more
  critical than text style, and in many cases, changing the font
  style is disorienting.

  JG: I would agree.

  DP: Some ATs (e.g., Jaws, Outspoken) relies on link color
  information.

  Resolved: 
   - For checkpoints 4.16, 4.17, 8.2, 8.3, remove the minimal font
     requirement since accessibility benefit uncertain. (The performance
     hit is a separate issue.)
   - If fonts are used for highlighting in any of these
     four checkpoints, user must be able to configure 
     the text decoration characteristics (but not font family and
     font size due to reflow issues).
   - The highlighting mechanism must not rely on color alone (per issue
353)
   - For four checkpoints, default highlights must be different.

 9.Issue #405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish 
   selection/focus
    http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#405

 JG: Already today, user agents assign a priority to focus and
 selection. So the final formatting depends on that priority.

 CMN: There's another piece to this - when you're actually selecting
 something, it concurrently has selection and focus. 

 Action JG: Write a proposal to the WG this week for a checkpoint
 about discerning focus from selection all the time.

===================
Action Item Summary
===================

Completed Action Items:
   10.IJ: Talk to the Director about DOM 2 proposal discussed at FTF
meeting
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0352.html

   33.JG: Ask PF people, especially Rich, about user agents that
    implement mouse events like mouse over with the keyboard next week 
    at ER-PF FTF.

     JG: Haven't asked RS yet. PF people didn't know of any
implementations.

Dropped Action Items:

   32.CMN: Send a proposed definition of equivalent to the group
       IJ: This has been subsumed by my action item.

Open Action Items

    1.WG: look for user agents that implement mouse events like mouse
over 
          with the keyboard.
         JA: I'll check out what can be done in HPR beta.
         GR: Check out microsoft.com as an example site.

    2.IJ: Follow up with Greg Lowney on issue 389

    3.IJ: (Issue 387) Propose new wording for check point 8.4 reflecting 
discussion on 28 November

    4.IJ: Ask Jason White for CSS implementation information for
emacspeak

    5.IJ: Publish new implementation report for the meeting

    6.IJ: Improve wording of note for 4.14 related to CSS reference

    7.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question 
(equivalence, text element, etc.)

    8.IJ: Draft new language for 6.2

    9.IJ: Get wording from Martin for thisrequirement (e.g., "conform", 
"implement", etc.) for issue 327

   11.IJ: Propose new checkpoints to see how it feels to harmonize the 
requirements related to comments in issue 348.

   12.IJ: Propose new checkpoints/modifiedcheckpoints for 8.2.

   13.IJ: Add some more explanation about the difference between 7.3
and7.4.

   14.IJ: Proposed fixed wording for 7.5

   15.IJ: Add to techniques a link to Adobe's accessible PDF
information.

   16.IJ and AG: Revise the applicability provision and send to WG.

   17.IJ: Ask Adobe why this is hard (issue 382)

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

   19.IJ: Proposed text in 2.1

   20.IJ: Add a note to 5.8 - content requirements may also apply to
user 
interface

   21.IJ: Mention that resizing and overiding absolute values is part of 
some specification in section 1.2

   22.IJ: Clarify the meaning of system colors

   23.IJ:
      a) clarify "recognize style" in checkpoints 4.5
      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

   24.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

   25.JG: Propose a list of things we areexpecting UAs to recognize in 
          scripts.

   26.AG: Send a reply to Phill related to issue 362

   27.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation
information

   28.GR: Talk to Håkon about CSS support.

   29.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the 
          techniques document based on OpenBook.

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

   31.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation
information

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 16:03:01 GMT

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