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

Raw minutes from 8 March 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:28:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3AA7F97C.6DADC92A@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
8 March 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:

Minutes of previous meeting 1-2 March 2001:

Next meeting: 15 March teleconference
 Regrets: Mickey Quenzer (at son's graduation for basic training),
          Jon Gunderson, Jim Allan

 Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Harvey Bingham, 
 David Poehlman, Mickey Quenzer, Tim Lacy, Jim Allan,
 Charles, McCathieNevile, Gregory Rosmaita, Eric Hansen,
 Rich Schwerdtfeger
Note: I will stop indicating Kitch Barnicle and Denis Anson as either
regrets or absent since they have indicated that they cannot attend
the meeting regularly. I hope you guys will still read the minutes!


 IJ: New draft will be available in a couple of days.


1. Issue 464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not
  always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL)

  IJ: Background - E.g., SMIL captions not marked up as such
  in captions. 

  CMN: Rather than change the applicability provision. Instead, I 
  think it might be useful to generalize some of the specific
  requirements (e.g., requirement to position captions). The
  implementation requirement doesn't change: you have to move
  some to move all. I think the applicability clause should stand.

  EH: Is middle ground possible (e.g., referring only to conditional

  JG: What about "potentially for captions"?

  IJ: But the SMIL spec doesn't say this. That's how WCAG says
      to use it.
 CMN: WAI PF wants to identify special relationships; but we can't at
      the moment. I don't think this implies a broken model, however.

  JG: What other technologies besides SMIL?

 CMN: Navigation bars in HTML.

  JG: Tim, is this harder to do (in general)?

  TL: I can see Charles' point. I would consider the increase in scope
  a fair increase in implementation burden. I don't know whether it 
  would be substantial.

  GR: We discussed this at the ftf meeting in Princeton.

  IJ: I think that this is a significant change, but the
     right one in terms of our document's model. I resist it
     due to the scope of the change.

  EH: I agree with CMN that we don't need to change the applicability

 /* Checkpoints really in question here from 24 Feb 2001 draft:
    2.5, 4.6 */

 CMN: Signed captions are video tracks. But still captions.

  IJ: Captions not defined that way in our spec. {Limited to text.}

  EH: The basic requirement is that if something has a time association,
  you have to synchronize them. Unless we want to get into repair 
  functions, all you can ask is to implement the spec.
  Action CMN: Find out from SYMM WG whether repositioning of
  objects will appear in the spec (or should be in UAAG).

  Some options:
   a) Broaden the checkpoints.
   b) Don't change the doc, some smil players won't have
      to meet these requirements. Wait 'till SMIL specs fixed.
 CMN: What PF is likely to come up with: RDF schema (e.g.,
  W3C Note).

  Leave spec as is.: TL, MQ, RS, JA, HB, EH, IJ
  /* RS joins */

  MQ: In addition to waiting for SMIL, any other groups?
 CMN: Quicktime spec...

  Broaden the checkpoint: DP, GR, CMN

  IJ: It's the right solution, the wrong time for it.

  HB: Digital talking book people are referencing SMIL 2.
  They are presuming that will be strong enough.

  IJ: Looking at Quicktime API, don't see anything specific
      to text captions.

  JA: This is called "Text stream"

  TL: Nothing in HTML+Time to identify captions as such.

  IJ: Proposal: add a P3 requirement for all objects.

 CMN: I'd still write a minority opinion.

  EH: It's a little strange to leave the checkpoint as is if
      checkpoints 2.5 and 4.6 are not applicable. Does this
      call for material in the introduction?

 CMN: The original proposal at this meeting was to adjust the
      applicability provision to special case this particular
      requirement. But I think that's the wrong way to go
      about it.

 - No change to the document.
 - People can file objections.

2. Issue 463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other

   - Issue closed (not relevant to advancing of the document).
   - No change to the document unless later proposal.

  Action IJ: Take to the cross-WG WAI list.

3. Issue 462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh
  (3.5) and redirection (3.6)

  IJ: Read my arguments for not changing the document.

  CMN: One reason to change: the priority to be able to go back 
  through things is closely related to the priority of the
  functionality. I'm not convinced that the user can tell the

  IJ: Yes to the user the same, but the UA developer may have
  to implement different behaviors.

   - No change to the document (do not merge checkpoints).

5. Issue 430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images

  See CMN's proposal:

  See IJ's proposal:

  EH: Is interactivity included?

  IJ: For example, what if I reload the W3C home page over time?

  TL: If you're requesting a refresh, that's a different class
  of thing. I don't think we should define at what rate a
  refresh becomes an animation. I don't think interactivity should
  be included in what constitutes an animation.

  /* MQ leaves, TL leaves */

  CMN: I would argue that stuff that is defined in the page as
  triggering the animation falls into this category, but reloading a
  page manually does not.

  GR: I like IJ's generic definition of animation.

   * I don't think the definition needs to be rock-solid.
   * I would exclude manual interaction from the definition
     (other than triggering).
   * I think in practice we won't have too many problems
     with edge cases "in practice" (people will know what
     we mean).
   * The important part for me was to use it consistently
     in all three checkpoints.

   - Adopt proposal (with editorial tweaks as indicated above):

6. Proposed changes to checkpoints related to focus, selection, and
   current viewport
  DP: See my question:

  DP: I think "navigation" says more than the things that replace it.
  I'm not sure how to capture "what's missing".

  IJ: I don't think that "navigate" says it any better. The term
  "navigate" is better at the Guideline level.

  GR: It needs to be clear that state persistence is bound to

  IJ: I think navigation includes pointing device navigation
  (e.g., among viewports). But for the purposes of our document,
  I think our requirements can be bound to the focus in particular.

  DP: What about querying?

  IJ: We have requirements for access to content through a viewport.
  We call the act of getting that content moving ones point of regard.

  DP: If I'm holding the Alt key down in Windows, without letting
  it up, am I moving the point of regard?
  IJ: Yes, but it's not the POR for very long.

  EH: Is POR a time specific view of things?
  IJ: It has time and space components.

  EH: I like Ian's analysis that went into this. A large editorial

  IJ: Note, for example, that the highlight requirement does not
  require highlighting of the viewport with the pointing device.
  But I'm not worried since in practice the pointing device and
  keyboard focus are bound anyway.

  CMN: I have vague reservations but can't formulate them right now.
  IJ: I would also note that I did not want to add pointing device
  requirements at this time.

   - Adopt proposal

7. Review of new checkpoints for the accessibility of elements
   with event handlers

   Refer to JG comments about priority of "not activating automatically"

   JG: We already have a requirement to turn off scripting altogether
   (which would allow one to suppress auto-activation). CMN seemed ok
   with a P2.

   GR: I think the "all scripting off" requirement is too heavy
   a requirement. This is like saying "turn all images off to turn
   off background images". I think that this should be a P1
   requirement. Refer to GR's questions:

   GR: The only way to get at multiple handlers is to get at the
   suspended state.

   IJ: I understand JG's comment to be:
     - Turning off scripts is a global setting (P1)
     - The proposed checkpoint is a per-element requirement (P2)

  CMN: Authoring issue (finding out what a script will do).

  CMN: I share the part of GR's concern that if you don't know that
       something will be activated when you turn scripts back on
       that something will happen.

   JG: Right, if the UA considers that when scripts are turned off, 
      an element is no longer an enabled element, then you couldn't
      navigate to it...

  CMN: My preference is to leave it a P1 (as initially proposed)
      rather than play with enabled element definition.

   - Leave the new checkpoint for per-element non-auto triggering
     of handlers a P1.

  IJ: Refer to my question about what is not supposed to happen
  in this configuration:

  IJ: Note the problem: if you turn off *all input behavior*, then
  you lose tabbing navigation, etc.

  CMN: You need to catch event bubbling...
   IJ: But in our navigation scheme, you only ever land on
   "top-level handlers". 

  CMN: It's an open question how events would be sent down to

   JG: What happens, you don't know.

   - The requirement to not fire event handlers 
     does not involve turning off stylistic effects.
   - The requirement is for explicit user input device
     event handlers assigned to an element.
     {If you want no events fired, turn off scripts.}
   - Since we may not know what was assigned by the author,
     we'll make no distinction about what was assigned by
     the author (or the AT). (In other words, no restriction
     about set of event handlers.)

/* JA leaves */

IJ: The DOM won't tell you today which events will trigger which
handlers for all handlers; only those supplied by the author in the
source. We seem, on the other hand, to be requiring turning off of all
event handlers. The sets are different: the set the user sees, the set
that are turned off.

CMN: I have some thoughts on this that I'll talk about on the list.

JG: We need input from Microsoft, Netscape, IBM on this.

8. Review of new checkpoints for speech adjustability


4. Issue 449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0


  Action IJ: I still have to do this.

Completed Actions

17. GR: Talk to National Tech Center at AFB about possible information
    on importance of documentation to users with disabilities.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

    GR: I've done this. Sent info from Jay Leventhal to JG, who
    should forward to IJ. Also, ask Kitch! Her dissertation
    overlaps with this topic.

20. TL: Report to WG on discussions at Microsoft about keyboard

Reassigned Actions

15. GL: Ask someone from Microsoft whether they will evaluate the
    guidelines with a product.
    Deadline: 2/1/2001

    TL: I'll follow up

Open Actions

 1. IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines (JRG volunteers
    to be one of the testers).
 2. IJ: Write an executive summary appendix.
 3. IJ: Propose text for how other documents should reference UAAG 1.0
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
 4. IJ: Distinguish techniques for fast forward versus faster palying
    (digital talking books), and point to digital talking books
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
 5. IJ: Add a Note to checkpoint 4.4.pointing to applicability
    provision about streaming and whether slow/etc.control enabled by
    the format.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
 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. JG: Write a proposal related to the expected actions as the result
    of triggering events associated with the focused element.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
10. JG: Take to WAI PF the requirement that formats need to provide a
    more precise means for specifying events (than HTML allows for).
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
11. JG: Create a wish list of otherrequirements not in UAAG 1.0,
    including those that might fall under thisGuideline.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
12. JG: Write up some techniques forcheckpoint on scripts on/off about
    subsetting the configuration.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
13. JG: Take to the WAI CG the question ofpursuing the DOM Views and
    Formatting module.
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
14. JG: Call Cindy King about formats that support separate windows
    for captioning information
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
18. HB: Talk to Geoff Freed (WGBH) about formats that support separate
    windows for captioning information
    Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
21. RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway to
    the WG.
22. RS: Write to w3c-wai-ua asking whether,within IE, it's possible to
    simulate mouse button events in a way that wouldgenerate an
    appropriate event object. Can we get the box from IE.


 6. JG: Implementation information for guideline 2
16. GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation
19. JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 16:28:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT