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

Raw minutes from 18 May 2001 UAWG teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:02:40 -0400
Message-ID: <3B057FE0.BF86FFF2@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
18 May 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0166

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

Minutes of previous meeting 17 May:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164

Next meetings: 23, 24, 25 May

 JG: I'll also try to get the bridge for Weds 30 May.

Present: 
 Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (scribe), David Poehlman,
 Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita

Absent: Harvey

Regrets: Rich Schwerdtfeger, Jim Allan, Mickey Quenzer, Tim Lacy, 
Eric Hansen

--------------
Discussion
--------------
[Issues 471, 472, 480] Guideline 6 API requirements
Refer to proposal
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0169

JG: Need to ensure that proprietary technology (e.g., Jaws scripting)
not considered API designed for interoperability.

IJ: We don't say how "sophisticated" the API has to be. If it's crappy
but provides equal access to ATs, that's good enough for UAAG 1.0. I
agree that there may be some IPR questions here: the API might be
public, but not free, and so one AT might be beholden to another who
has proprietary technology.

/* IJ notes that a couple of our checkpoints in effect make
requirements that involve proprietary technologies: 6.X, and 6.7
included */

DA: APIs are interfaces. Shouldn't they be IPR-free?

IJ: You'd think so, but some people want to charge for them!

/* GR arrives */

Resolved:
 - Accept 
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0169
 - Add to 6.X that for (a) or (b), must be publicly documented.
 - Add loud cross-refs from 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 to 6.X
 - Need to define "available" as in 8.2. Note that this
   allows older software to conform (since, say, MSAA was not
   available at the time).
 - Change "interoperability with ATs" to "interoperability between
   the user agent and ATs".
 - Add Note that our expectation for interoperability is that more
   than one AT of the same type and different vendor works with the UA.
 - Add Note that 6.X may be satisfied with proprietary technologies.
 - Mention but don't require "latest version", backwards
   compatibility. See 8.2 for similar verbiage for Techniques.

Action IJ: Make this change to the next version.

IJ: We need to set expectations that today, MSAA would allow
conformance to 6.X on Windows.

DP: What about Windows foundation classes?

IJ: They would be ok if std I/O is used.

Question: Should 6.X be a separate checkpoint or integrated into 6.3,
6.4, 6.5.

Answer: Leave 6.X separate and see how it works.

Question: What APIs will satisfy these checkpoints?

 6.3: NEED APIs (e.g., for PDF, Flash, EcmaScript etc.)
     GR: E.g,. http://access.adobe.com:80/book3.html
     GR: Also need digital sig API for permissions.

 Action DA: Write Loretta Reid for info about Adobe APIs.

 6.4: On Windows, MSAA. For Java, Java Access API.
 6.5: On Windows, MSAA. Or the DOM Events module.
 6.X: Any DOM API, MSAA, Java Access API, others?

GR: Check out XBL. http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/

JG: Henter-Joyce supports the Java access bridge.

IJ: We need to get ATs to review these changes.

JG: We should call a special teleconference when we get this
figured out. 

IJ: I propose 31 May 2001 teleconf specially for ATs and APIs.

Action JG: Contact companies to meet on this date.


For techniques document:
 Flash accessibility URI:
 http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/productinfo/accessibility/

---------------------------
Resolved:

 - Change 4.1 and 4.2 to "visually rendered text".

---------------------------
Issue 479
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#479

GR: Not sure whether the proposal breaks down for audio. You can't
restyle every element.

IJ: Then 4.4 is broken (Either 4.10 or 4.4 is broken.). Note that 4.10
is about content only.

Resolved:
 - Adopt proposal 12a, 12b from:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
 - Add to document (e.g., G4 prose) a note about the "lack of space" 
   in the  (serial) aural space, so that the distinction between content 
   and UI controls is less obvious. Therefore, while this document
   in general only makes requirements about aural rendering of
   content, user agent developers should consider applying these
   requirements to both content and UI controls.

Action IJ: Make these changes to the document.

----------------------
Completed action items
----------------------

4.IJ: Write up a proposal for the cascade of APIs
Source: 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161
Done:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0169

6.IJ: - Ask I18N and Chris Lilley about how to express a lower bound
on avg character dimensions in terms of readability and use
terminology as part of minimum requirement for checkpoint 4.1
Source: 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164
Done: 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0171

----------------------
Open action items
----------------------

1.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.
  Source: Minutes 19 April 2001 Teleconference

2.IJ: Make mention of animations, text streams, and refresh in the 
document.
  Source: Minutes 19 April 2001 Teleconference

3.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

5.IJ: Revise proposal to address Issue #474.
  Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164

7.JG: Talk to AT developers about assistive technology about using 
accessibility API
  Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161

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

9.GR: Review event checkpoints for techniques

10.GR: Rewrite different markup (list of elements) that 2.9 applies to, 
for clarification.

11.DP and GR: Produce an example scenario to justify this checkpoint 9.5 
and to satisfy Issue #482
  Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164

 GR: There are pages where focus causes a form submission. It depends
 on how you establish focus.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 16:02:41 GMT

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