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

AGENDA: W3C User Agent Teleconference 18 January 2001

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:28:03 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Telecon for January 18th, 2001

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2001
Time: 2:00-4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Review Open Action Items (view details below)


    1.Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001


    1.Update on joint meetings at all working group meeting

    2.Update on revisions to the 13 January working draft from IJ

    3.Issue 324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a 
task" in checkpoint 6.2
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#324
      Proposed resolution by IJ:: 

    4.Issue 327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#327
      Status: We resolved to add a requirement at 16 Nov face-to-face.
      Proposed resolution by IJ: 

    5.Issue 373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#373
      Proposed resolution by IJ: Don't raise this priority. It's already P1 
to document all features that benefit accessibility. Therefore, while 
useful, lack of
      documentation of the changes specifically would not make 
understanding the documentation impossible.

    6.Issue 382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when 
scripts used).
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#382
      Status: I wrote the reviewer asking for more details and have not 
heard back yet except that the reviewer acknowledged reception of my request.
      Proposed resolution by IJ: Since 3.2 is about animated images, not 
all animated effects, scripting is not an issue. No change to the document.

    7.Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective 
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#389
      Status: I wrote the reviewer with clarifications and asked for 
comment. No response yet.
      Proposed resolution by IJ: We have reduced some of the conformance 
requirements as a result of the reviewer's comments. We have worked very 
hard on
      this conformance scheme and rejected a number of others. If the 
reviewer has specific suggestions, we will consider them.

    8.Issue 394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided 
through a source view.
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394
      Proposed resolution by IJ: 

    9.Issue 443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) 
specific events.
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#443
      Status: The document currently requires emulation of mouse-specific 
controls by virtue of our requirement that the user must be able to do 
everything through
      the mouse.
      a) Do we want to require the UA to repair device-specific bindings 
specified by the author?
      b) Do we have evidence that the ability to simulate mouse events 
through the keyboard benefits the user?

   10.Issue 445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the 
keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#445
      Proposed resolution by IJ: UAAG 1.0 is designed to promote 
accessibility of the Web for users with many types of disabilities. 
Keyboard access is
      considered fundamental for this. This document is not designed to 
promote the accessibility of specialized user agents. Therefore no change 
to our

   11.Issue 446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable 
(variable priority linked to WCAG).
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#446
      Status: We have already discussed this (refer to issue 111 [1]) and 
resolved to leave this a priority one checkpoint. The rationale has been 
that if user agents
      don't implement features, authors will never be able to use them. 
Therefore, UAAG 1.0 must "lead".
      [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111

   12.Issue 447: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#447
      Status: The reviewer's comment was that the document said that the 
user agent should work by default. But since the document requires lots of 
      to meet the different needs of users, for which users should the 
document work by default? The problematic sentence in the last call draft 
was "Note: User
      agent developers are strongly encouraged to design software that 
conforms in the default configuration." That statement has been removed 
from the 13
      January 2001 draft because it doesn't make sense: You don't "conform" 
in the default configuration. You simply conform or you don't. Therefore, 
unless there
      are objections or other comments. I would consider this issue resolved.

   13.Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is 
checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]
      Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448
      Comment: The reviewer's comment was "Is this section referring to 
viewing the page or editing the page? Why would a user need to access the 
CSS when
      viewing a document?"
      Proposed resolution by IJ: Make this requirement read-only access. - 
We already require that a conforming user agent allow the user to select 
and apply
      user style sheets (checkpoint 4.15 in 13 Jan 2001 draft). - We 
require that the user be able to operate the user agent through keyboard 
alone. - Therefore,
      the user should be able to apply user style sheets through the 
conforming UA's user interface. ATs do not need to write to user style 
sheets through an API.
      Can people suggest a scenario where the AT would need to write to the 
conforming user agent's user style sheet through an API?

Open Action Items

    1.IJ: Update 8.8 techniques.
      Done, will appear in next draft

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

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

    4.IJ and EH: to review the definition of "presentation" to possibly 
drop URI-dependencies.

    5.IJ and EH: Work on definition of "animation" that identifies 
"animated image" as a special case. Also talks about script effects, style 
sheets effects, markup
      languages as being able to create animations. (Blinking not part of 

    6.IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add TeX, RTF, 
PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel

    7.IJ: Add clarification statement to checkpoint 7.3 to the document

    8.IJ: Add to directional navigation to techniques to checkpoint 7.3

    9.JG: Talk to Al Gilman at the next WAI CG meeting about a joint 
meeting with UA, PF, and Voice WG (or participants) to discuss 
accessibility issues.

   10.JG: Send screen shots of directional techniqes

   11.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

   12.JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech 
implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same synthesizer

   13.JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the 
next version of the document

   14.DP: Send information about tools that allow mouse binding reconfiguration

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

   16.GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline 1/18/2001)

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

   18.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the 
techniques document based on OpenBook. (deadline open)

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

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
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 Wednesday, 17 January 2001 10:26:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC