W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Raw minutes from 5 April 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:48:21 -0400
Message-ID: <3ACCBDF5.5A150F18@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
5 April 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0003

Reference document 4 April 2001 Guidelines:
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010404/

Minutes of previous meeting 29 March:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555

Next meeting: 12 April teleconference:

Present: 
 Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (scribe), Gregory Rosmaita, 
 Harvey Bingham, Mickey Quenzer, Tim Lacy, David Poehlman

Absent: Denis Anson, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Eric Hansen

Regrets: Charles McCathieNevile, Jim Allan

----------
Discussion
----------

1.Last call scheduling issues

IJ: 
a) 4 April draft is basically the one to go to last call
   with some editorial changes.

b) Last call: 9 or 10th to 4 May.

c) Objections? 
 
   IJ: I have two: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553

   /* Participants here don't have other objections. */

d) Encourage widespread review. There will be a public version
   of the last call announcement on the UA list.

   JG: I'll send last call review to people we've sent it to
    in the past.

e) What do we want from this review?
   i) Clarifications ok. Notably editorial ones. 
  ii) IJ: I don't think we should re-open issues without
      significant new evidence.
 iii) We expect to put new issues or proposals in the future
      issues list:
      http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-new.html

f) Some (very general) scheduling:

   i) Suppose 3 weeks to process last call issues. 
      IJ: Propose two meetings/week to address issues.
      Same time on Tuesdays 2pm ET for: GR, MQ, HB, IJ, JG

  ii) Prepare implementation report during last call. Suppose
      we don't have implementation experience for every requirement.
      IJ: We go to CR until we do. If we remove requirements, we
      have to go back to last call. Suppose we have a 6-week last call.

 iii) Go to PR end of July.
  
  iv) Beginning of September for Recommendation (optimistically).

      JG: Very optimistically....I think we may require much longer.

2. Techniques document review

  GR: I like the state of the speech checkpoints 4.13-4.15
  DP: I'll work on navigation section.
  TL: I'll meet with Ian at Microsoft.

------------------
Action item review
------------------

--------------
Closed actions
--------------

1.IJ: Talk to Judy about adding informative quote from
     section 508 about definition of AT.
 Source: 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555.html
 Status: IJ sent email to W3C Team.

4.TL: Report to WG on discussions at Microsoft about keyboard emulation.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0227

TL: We provide the APIs to do this. Developers weren't sure
    why they would want to do this. I'm not sure that this is
    a good answer, but this is the direction people are taking.

JG: My browser group has implemented some software to query
elements and trigger events in a device-independent manner. I will
send a pointer to this in a couple of weeks.

TL: There's a feature in Windows 2000 where you can have the pointer
follow the focus rectangle. But the expected functionality doesn't
work. I found it to be more confusing than valuable today.

TL: Windows 2000 Narrator has an option to have the mouse follow the
focus.

GR: JFW does the same thing.

8.HB: Talk to EO about publishing "How do people with disabilities use 
     the Web".
Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555.html

HB: We have another round of edits to be done. 

IJ: When expected to be published as a Note?

HB: Judy has to do the edits first.

------------
Open actions
------------

2.IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines (JRG volunteers to 
      be one of the testers).
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137

3.TL: Ask someone from Microsoft whether they will evaluate the 
       guidelines with a product.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137

   TL/IJ: We will talk about this when Ian at Microsoft.

6.CMN: Find out from SYMM WG whether repositioning of objects will 
appear in the spec (or should be in UAAG).
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357

7.RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway to the
WG.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 14:48:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:49 GMT