- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:04:25 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
18 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0093.html
Minutes of previous meeting 11 January:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
Next meeting: Monday, 22 January 2001 @ 2pm ET
Present:
Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Mickey Quenzer,
Tim Lacy, Harvey Bingham, David Poehlman, Rich Schwerdtfeger.
Regrets: Eric Hansen, Kitch Barnicle, Jim Allan
Absent:
Charles McCathieNevile, Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita.
Announcements
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.
Discussion
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
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#324
Proposed resolution by IJ::
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437.html
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.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20010112.html
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"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/10/hurdles)
Resolved:
1) Adopt
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437
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?
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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088.html
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
encodings.
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 */
Resolved:
- 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
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.
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).
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.
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,
Flash.
Resolved:
- No change to checkpoint 3.2.
- Await new information from Adobe.
7. Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an
objective fashion.
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.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0038.html
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.
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394
Proposed resolution by IJ:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html
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.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html
Include rationale:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0065.html
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 requirements.
Resolved: No change per rationale provided.
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)
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".
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111
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
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 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.]
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? (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
interface.
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.
NO RESOLUTION
-------------------
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.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
5. JG: [21]Send screen shots of directional techniqes
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
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
reconfiguration
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
10. GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation
information
11. GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline
1/18/2001)
12. JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation
information
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
Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088
3. IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add
TeX, RTF, PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.htm.
Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116
4. IJ: Add clarification statement to checkpoint 7.3 to the
document
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
Done:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation
5. IJ: Add to directional navigation to techniques to checkpoint 7.3
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
Done:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation
--
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