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

Raw minutes from 22 March 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:03:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3ABA68A2.87CC6E3D@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
22 March 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:

Reference document 19 March 2001 Guidelines:

Minutes of previous meeting 15 March:

Next meeting: 29 March teleconference:

 Ian Jacobs (chair, scribe), Mickey Quenzer, Jon Gunderson,
 David Poehlman, Gregory Rosmaita, Tim Lacy, Eric Hansen, 
 Charles McCathieNevile

Absent: Aaron Leventhal, Harvey Bingham, Denis Anson

Regrets: Jim Allan, Rich Schwerdtfeger


TL, IJ: I'll be attending WWW10 in Hong Kong.

IJ: I'm visiting Netscape 27 March. Intend to visit Microsoft and
    RealNetworks in April as well (all about UAAG).


a) Proposal to clarify checkpoint 2.9 

IJ: Note that, e.g., 3.7 is an important special case of 2.9.
But remember that 3.7 is about disorienting visual imagery, not
access to conditional content. You could satisfy 2.9 at the same
time as 3.7 by rendering "alt" instead of images.

IJ: I think that the solution of rendering alt instead of any images
is one solution to satisfying 2.3. Maybe some clarification is
required because when you satisfy through query, element-level control
is clear. Less clear when the global replacement solution is taken.

EH: I think it needs to be made clearer: depending on which option you
choose, the requirments change slightly.

IJ: I'm not sure that query mechanism works for 2.9. In the case
of specs where conditional content rendering is fully described, 2.9
still says "let me do the rendering globally, automatically."

CMN: WAI PF is starting to look at the question of expected renderings
of features. What we want is a functional rendering configuration.

IJ: I think there are some conditions that can't be simulated.

IJ: I think 2.9 looks like 2.3, but differences are:

  - Global effect (not element-level control).
  - Automatic

JG: It seems like 2.9 only applies in the query case.

IJ: Except that element-level control is possible to meet 2.3 and
that wouldn't work for 2.3.


 - We agree that 2.9 is about automatic rendering, and applies
   to all conditional content (element-level control is not required).

Action IJ: In next draft, clarify the relationship between 2.3 and 2.9.

b) I'd like to get confirmation of changes to the speech
  characteristic checkpoints of the 19 March 2001 draft
  (as announced:

  /* Editorial note to Ian: 4.14 needs editorial fix, two notes need
     to be one */

  EH: The minimal requirement for 4.13 is not clear.

  IJ: What piece is missing?

  JG: 4.14 and 4.15 are about specific capabilities. These may not
      exist in 4.13.

  IJ: This needs to be made clearer: 4.14 is like 4.13 but imposes
  particular characteristics. Your speech synthesizer has to support
  these characteristics.

  JG: The preset voices may be a way to change these parameters. Leave
  the note.

  Action IJ: Add "accent" to the list of "gender" and "age".

  EH: Shouldn't the Note of 4.13 also include "pitch range" and
  other more specific characteristics.

  MQ: Some of the terms we use here (e.g., richness) I've not seen
  defined in any synthesizer.

  IJ: That's why we point to CSS2 for the description.

  GR: Speech synthesizers do have a concept of richness. E.g., 
  DoubleTalk LT has richness settings (e.g., echo chamber).
  JG: I think the DecTalk also supports that parameter.

  MQ: I think we need stronger definition of "richness". 

 CMN: I share Mickey's concern. It would be nice to copy the
      glossary reference into our own glossary.

  IJ: Three questions:
   a) Do CSS2 terms meet our needs? 
      IJ: I note that CSS2 is a W3C Recommendation, which is a strong
          stamp of approval.
   b) How normative are they?
   c) Editorial: Should we copy the terms in UAAG 1.0.

  JG: From the Cambridge face-to-face, it was clear that one reason
  we have 4.14 and 4.15 is for support for a system like CSS2. These
  checkpoints are for designers choosing which speech technology to
  include in their product. I don't think we need to do more to 
  define "richness".

  GR: There is such a diversity of names among speech synthesizers,
  I think it's valuable to use a common term such as "richness", which
  is defined in CSS2.


    - Use the CSS2 definitions as normative definitions.
    - Include definitions in the UAAG 1.0 Glossary.

c) Checkpoint 9.1: Delete sentence about pointing device interaction
   [NOTE: I've implemented this one in the 19 March draft since I
    don't expect that it will be controversial.]

  Resolved: Accept this proposal.

d) Checkpoint 2.7: Solution for repair text should not be
   minimal requirement.
   Note: There is support for this proposal from Al and Denis.

   Resolved: Accept this proposal: This technique is sufficient
   but not necessary to satisfy the checkpoint.

   EH: Should that be in a Note?

  CMN: I'm inclined to leave the sufficient technique is ok 
  for the checkpoint text, but indicate in the Note that other
  solutions are possible.

  (IJ: I think that that's what CMN said)

  EH: I think that since it's not normative, then should be
  outside the checkpoint.

  IJ: But I want to make a stronger comment here: this technique
  is ack'd by the WG to be sufficient. We could add to the Note
  a better solution (e.g,. going to the Web to get a title of
  a resource).

  EH: I think we may need to provide more information about what
  is expected.

  IJ: We might avoid "may" and simply say "A UA satisfies this
  requirement by providing. ..."

  IJ: What is important, I think, is to get information that the
  author provided. There may be useful information elsewhere in the
  same resource or in other resources. We can just tell developers to
  look around for useful information that the author may have provided


   - Mime type, URI reference, element are sufficient but not
     necessary requirements.

   - Adopt proposal (with possible editorial changes).

   - In a Note, give developers a hint about what would constitute
     useful information. Make clear in Note that other techniques 
     may be better (and give an example of a better technique).

e) Refer to conformance proposals regarding content/ui labels, input
   device conformance, and conformance example.

   See also the proposal to address conformance through pointing
   device and voice input and the question at the end of the
   proposal about the shape of Guideline 1.

   I think this proposal subsumes Al's comments:

   IJ: Has anyone read the proposals besides EH?

   DP: I read them.

   MQ: I started to read but got confused.

   /* IJ reviews proposal */

  IJ: Part three is an example of how to use the conformance model.
  IJ: My example suggested to me that it's necessary to identify
  formats in a claim.

  JG: You could have a general conformance claim requirement to
  indicate the formats that are supported as part of conformance.


  - For Content type labels: you must either say "I don't do type X"
  or "For conformance related to content type type X, I support these

 /* Ian explains part II of the proposal: 
    input modality conformanced */

 EH: I think these changes are editorial and good. They don't change
     any requirements.


 - Adopt input modality proposals in:

 /* Ian explains Part I of the proposal *

  - Adopt proposal to label each checkpoint for content, user agent,
    or both.
  - As to checkpoint grouping labels, Ian may leave those
    (informative) because they allow related checkpoints with 
    different priorities to be next to each other.

 /* What should Guideline 1 read? */

 IJ: What about "Support full user agent operation through the

 JG: That works with the substitution model.

 IJ: But what about 1.2? Awkward to have Guideline 1 only have
    one checkpoint.

 IJ: What about "Support full operation through keyboard input
     and text output"?

 JG: I like the terminology of G1, even if we don't have checkpoints
 for device-independence. We are trying to highlight the concept of
 device independence; I hate to lose that concept.  You are supporting
 device-independence when you do the substitution of input devices.

 IJ: Maybe we can have a generic guideline and provide more rationale
 why it's about dev-independence at the checkpoint level.


 - It's ok to have an over-reaching Guideline 1.

 Action IJ: Make the prose of the guideline and checkpoints explain
 how the checkpoints relate to the goal of device-independence.

g) Executive summary (proposed by Eric)

 JG: We shouldn't hold up the document for this, and I have a few

 IJ: I still intend to edit this. (And IJ has an action still on this).

 JG: I think that the executive summary should talk about themes.

 IJ: Doesn't the statement of the Guidelines cover this?

 JG: But those Guidelines statement are in the TOC. I think the
 summary should give a different view of the document.

 /* We don't have to finish this on the call */

h) Search termation. Refer to ideas from David:

 DP: Is search wrapping notification any more/less important that
 other notifications that may come from the search? A lot already
 happens now (e.g., you're told before a search wrap). I think we
 need to be alerted when there are no more instances found.


 - Add requirement to 9.8 alert when no more instances are found.


- Issue 468: The "at least a majority" minimal requirement needs

- Issue 467: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: Toggle placeholders off

- Al Gilman has suggested that we may have a way to deal with
  SMIL captions for checkpoints 2.5 and 4.5. 

-- We need to add to the Techniques document for
   the following checkpoints 2.9, 5.6, 9.3, 9.5,
   9.6, 9.7. Additional techniques are welcome as well.

Action item summary
Open actions

IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines (JRG volunteers to 
be one of the testers).

IJ: Write an executive summary appendix.


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

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

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

JG: Create a wish list of other requirements not in UAAG 1.0, 
including those that might fall under this Guideline.
  Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

JG: Write up some techniques for checkpoints on scripts on/off about 
subsetting the configuration.
  Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

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

JG: Call Cindy King about formats that support separate windows for 
captioning information
  Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

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

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

  TL: I got a lot of shrugs and little interest about this. I'll
  send a synopsis.

CMN: Find out from SYMM WG whether repositioning of objects will 
appear in the spec (or should be in UAAG).

RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway 
to the WG.

Completed action items

IJ: Take to the cross-WG WAI list the issue of how to refer to UAAG 
(or other WAI specs) in non-W3C documents
  Email to CG:

Completed action items available in 19 March 2001 draft

IJ: Work on editorial changes to 2.9.
    Include an example (e.g., "alt" for IMG in HTML).

IJ: Add to the beginning of the document (limitations)
    that 3.1 doesn't cover layers.

IJ: Add to the techniques document that it's ok to render
    the unblinking text not in context.

IJ: Add to techniques to show images "temporarily" and when you
   leave the image, it goes away.

Proposed to drop:

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

  IJ: This is already in the techniques document.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 16:03:40 GMT

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