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

Re: Raw minutes from 12 December 2000 UAAG teleconference

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:07:42 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001207170704.01273820@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Correction on the minutes.  The date is 7 December 2000.

Jon


At 04:02 PM 12/7/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>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

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 18:06:34 GMT

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