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

Raw minutes from 19 April 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:51:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3ADF41C8.660A8AF4@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
19 April 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0041

Reference document 11 April 2001 Guidelines:
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010411/

Minutes of previous meeting 5 April:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0009

Next meeting: 26 April teleconference:
 Regrets: IJ (for 26 April and 3 May).

Present: 
 Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (scribe), Harvey Bingham, 
 David Poehlman, Tim Lacy, Mickey Quenzer, Eric Hansen,
 Jim Allan

Regrets: Gregory Rosmaita

Absent: Denis Anson, Rich Schwerdtfeger, 
        Charles McCathieNevile

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

1) What we should be doing now: implementations

JG: We need to be thinking about implementations now.  We should
be preparing to be using Candidate Recommendation period to test
the checkpoints, and to show that they improve accessibility. We
should be a little less concerned with improving the
document. The goal is getting conformance, implementation, and
outreach.

2) Proposed clarification to checkpoint 12.5:
   (This and following points come from:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0034

   Resolved: Adopt proposal.

3) Changing "for all" to narrower scope for checkpoints
   2.1, 2.2, 8.1, and 8.2
   Proposed in:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044

   Resolved: 
     - The user agent is not required to conform for *all*
       formats. 
     - The claim should include information about which
       formats are implemented for the purposes of
       conformance. 
     - The claim should include information about 
       which APIs are implemented for the purposes of
       conformance.

   Action IJ: Edit the text of checkpoints 2.1, 2.2, 8.1,
   and 8.2 so that UAs are not required to conform for
   all formats that are implemented.

4) What should be done with lost packets?

   Resolved:

   - We do not require the user agent to buffer lost
     packets when the user has paused a presentation.

   - Clarify in the document that for some live 
     presentations, there may be information loss when 
     pause happens for 2.4, 3.5, and 4.4
 
   - Technique: In this case, I think we should suggest in the
   techniques document that the user agent should alert the user
   (notably in the configuration to pause automatically) that
   pausing may lead to information loss. We can also recommend
   some buffering.

5) Will checkpoint 2.4 be useful in heavily
   interactive presentations?

   Resolved:

   - We agree, there is some content where 2.4 pausing
   may not result in optimal usability. But the user
   can always turn off the configuration if they want to.

   - Add a technique to allow the user element-level
     control (e.g., to not pause for a particular 
     element).

6) What is the scope of 2.4? What must be paused?

  JG: From a user's perspective, I would expect
  the user agent to pause both streams. Most tools
  only offer one pause button.

  IJ: I think that in SMIL you always know that
  the streams are going on in parallel (through <par>).

   Resolved:

   - We don't specify what should happen in this case.
     Checkpoint 2.6 covers the case of synchronized
     content. We don't say anything about what the 
     user agent should do when there are unsynchronized 
     streams. We are presuming that both streams
     will be available at another time.

   - Add a cross reference from 2.4 to 2.6 and
     state that when the presentation is paused, we
     expect that synchronized content would be paused
     as well.

7) Checkpoint 3.3 (blinking/animation) and streams

  - Clarify that animation effect and text stream (text
    arrives over time) are independent. Give the
    movie subtitles example as text that arrives
    over time but is not animated.

  - This is related to refresh (e.g,. a stock
    ticker). Checkpoint 3.5 applies.
  
  Action IJ: Make mention of animations, text streams,
  and refresh in the document.

/* Jim leaves */

8) Checkpoint 4.6: Captions positioning.

  Resolved:

   - Allow technique of captions in another viewport for 4.6.

   - Sample rewrite of checkpoint:

     "For graphical viewports, allow the user to position text
     transcripts, collated text transcripts, and captions in the
     same or another viewport."

9) Checkpoint 4.6: Captions positioning and layout issues.

  JG: What happens when I want to increase the font size
  and that causes layout problems?

  JG: I think that we will need to test this checkpoint in CR.

  JQ: Quicktime Player Pro lets you query the tracks of a movie,
  and for some of the tracks, you can change some of the
  properties. I can move captions around on the screen. But I
  can't change the font size of the captions from the same
  user interface.

  Resolved:

  - Add Note to 4.6 that this involves user override of
    author-specified layout.

  - Add Note to 4.6 that the user agent isn't required
    to reflow the presentation (i.e., lay it out differently)

  - If the format doesn't allow the user agent to reposition
    the content, then the control applicability provision is
    relevant.

10) Definition of "override".

  Resolved:

   - Define "user override" in the document.
   - "User override" can mean:
       a) Turn off or on.
       b) Replace one value with another.

11) Issue 8: Checkpoint 10.9: Scope of position indicator?

  Resolved:

 - Don't state the granularity of the proportion indicator.
 - Include the technique that is mentioned in:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044


-----------
New actions
-----------

JG: Create third last call issues list.

-----------------
Completed actions
-----------------

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

Update:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0043

TL: Ask someone from Microsoft whether they will evaluate the
guidelines with a product.

TL: I sent mail to a number of product managers asking for review
of the last call document before 4 May.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137

7.DP: Review navigation checkpoints for techniques
Done:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0039

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

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

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

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

GR: Review event checkpoints for techniques

MQ: Review speech checkpoints

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 15:51:41 GMT

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