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

Raw minutes from 18 Jan 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:04:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3A675A59.A0FE0C@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
18 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference


Minutes of previous meeting 11 January:  

Next meeting: Monday, 22 January 2001 @ 2pm ET

   Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Mickey Quenzer,
   Tim Lacy, Harvey Bingham, David Poehlman, Rich Schwerdtfeger.
Regrets: Eric Hansen, Kitch Barnicle, Jim Allan

    Charles McCathieNevile, Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita.


  1. Extra telecon:
     Date: Monday, 22 January 2001
     Time: 2:00-3:30 EST
     Phone: +1-617-252-7000

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

     TL: I'm probably not going. 
     IJ: Please send someone else from Microsoft.
     TL: I will follow-up on this.
     MQ: I doubt I can go unless I can get sponsored.


  1. Update on joint meetings at all working group meeting
     JG: Only two likely: DOM WG and/or CSS WG
     JG: Voice, Mobile WGs not meeting. But they are interested
         in having a joint teleconference at some point.

  2. Update on revisions to the 16 January working draft from IJ

     IJ: Fixed conformance section.

  3. Issue 324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate
     for a task" in checkpoint 6.2


     Proposed resolution by IJ::

     Issue: What priority of requirement to WCAG 1.0?

     HB: Take PDF, in general, they may not meet a particular
     level of WCAG. But if you remove some features, they might.
     IJ: One problem is that we don't have a formal way to 
     say "this format allows conformance to WCAG". We don't have
     a "format accessibility guidelines". I think that it may
     be easier to say "this format does not allow WCAG-conformant
     authoring" than "this format does".

     HB: I have a concern about this formulation and verifiability. 
     The ER is developing means for making accessibility assertions
     about documents and perhaps generators of those documents.

     IJ: Note that 12 January WCAG 2.0 includes similar
     language in checkpoint 2.1.

     IJ: We could add to the document a statement about which
     checkpoints are subject to interpretability (refer to 
     "Hurdles of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"

       1) Adopt
       2) Add statement to docuement that some checkpoints
          may be subject to interpretation. 

     Action IJ: Add these resolutions for issue 324.

  4. Issue 327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of
     each API?


     Status: We resolved to add a requirement at 16 Nov face-to-face.

     Proposed resolution by IJ:

     TL: Whatever the DOM requires, MSAA would also have to support.

     RS: Isn't this part of using standard APIs? I think a lot of
     things wouldn't work any if the API doesn't support these

     RS: I don't want to add a requirement that causes us to
         go back to last call.

     IJ: I don't think it does. It's part of existing API
         requirements, just a special case.

     TL: I don't think it does.

     /* TL finds that MSAA requires UTF-16 */

        - Adopt proposal for new API.
        - Add to the Note that this is a special case 
          checkpoint of all API requirements in general.

     Action IJ: Add this checkpoint for API support.

  5. Issue 373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1


     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.
     RS: I agree with IJ's proposal. Note also that no documentation
     of changes is not a problem specifically to users with 
     disabilities. Changes affect all users.
     Resolved: Leave priority of 10.5 a Priority 2 for reasons
     cited by IJ.

  6. Issue 382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g.,
     when scripts used).


     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

     DP: I think that the issue was that the format doesn't allow
     Adobe to know that an image is an animated image.
     IJ: But in this case, a broader solution would meet the
     requirement (e.g., turn off all images).

     IJ: Recall that "animation" is supposed to be a more
      general class of thing than "animated image". I think that G3
      is about animated images only, but G4 is about animated effects
      you can achieve through scripting, style effects, SMIL animation,

        - No change to checkpoint 3.2.
        - Await new information from Adobe.

  7. Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an
     objective fashion.


     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.

     TL: Lowney says he will respond by next Wednesday.

  8. Issue 394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided
     through a source view.


     Proposed resolution by IJ:

     JG: Text only?

     IJ: No. Consider using "less" on a Word document. There are
     cases where it may not be useful (e.g., looking at a WAV file).

     TL: I think the proposal is a good one.

     JG: What about streaming video/audio? 

     IJ: I think we can ask for a static view (i.e., it doesn't have
     to change over time).

     IJ: According to this requirement, user agents would have to
     show JPEG data in order to conform.

     DP: Once in a while, I bring up a JPEG image in Notepad to
     verify that the file is not empty. There's also stuff in 
     WAV files like author information.

     IJ: The goal is not to be able to view any old format through any
     conforming UA. Clearly the UA should provide a source view for
     specs that it implements. Should a UA provide a source view for
     specs that it doesn't implement?  It is possible to claim
     conformance for a user agent that doesn't feature a source view
     in conjunction with Notepad (or less).

     Proposed revision:
        - Only for specs that the UA implements.
        - Only for formats where text can be extracted from
          the format.

     JG: I like this a lot better.

     Resolved: Adopt Ian's proposal with revisions.
     Include rationale:

 10. Issue 445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use
     the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?


     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 requirements.

     Resolved: No change per rationale provided.

 11. Issue 446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint
     scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG).


     Status: We have already discussed this (refer to issue 111)
     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
     JG: We don't have a one-to-one mapping between WCAG and markup.
         UAAG 1.0 must lead, so we require P1 for all features.

     Resolved: No change per rationale provided.

 12. Issue 447: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements

     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 configurability 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.

     Resolved: Sentence deleted since erroneous.

 13. Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write?
     [This is checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]

     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? (e.g., screen magnifier?)

     DP: The AT might take a hit if the AT can't write.
     IJ: But writing possible through the conforming UA's user
     RS: Current style API doesn't support writing to style sheets.
         CSS API doesn't let you add a style sheet.

     Action IJ: Ask Philippe Le Hegaret about this and alert the WG.


Action Item Summary

Open Action Items

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

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

  3. 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 animations...?)

  4. JG: [20]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.

  5. JG: [21]Send screen shots of directional techniqes

  6. JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

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

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

  9. DP: [22]Send information about tools that allow mouse binding

 10. GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation

 11. GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline

 12. JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation

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

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

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Update 8.8 techniques.
     Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116

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

  3. IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add
     TeX, RTF, PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel
     Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116

  4. IJ: Add clarification statement to checkpoint 7.3 to the

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

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 16:04:29 UTC

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