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

MINUTES: W3C User Agent Teleconference 23 August 2001

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:10:51 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010827081003.0134fdb0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

>
>WAI UA Telecon for August 23th, 2001
>Present:
>Jon Gunderson - jg
>David Poehlman - dp
>Jim Allan - ja (scribe)
>Gregory Rosmaita - gr
>
>Announcements
>
>     1.User Agent FTF Meeting at Microsoft on 13-14 September 2001 hosted by
>Microsoft (Redmond, WA)
>
>Review Action Items
>     1.JG: Talk about JG's tool and EARL integration at WAI CG. - not done
>
>     2.JG: Netscape version 6.X (newest) by next Tuesday - not done, working
>on improving report software
>
>     3.GR: Contact Dolphin - no luck, called a few times. they are busy with
>beta. Will have telecon block for AT at F2F.
>
>     4.DP: Contact Freedom box, Ion Systems. done
>
>     5.RS: Find out whether anyone from HPR or Multimedia groups can attend.
>_ will attend
>
>     6.TL: Review initial implementation report for IE and comment - ???
>
>     7.DP: Review HPR by next Tuesday - done, JG working on  format
>
>     8.JA: Review Real media player by next Tuesday. - still working
>
>     9.HB: Review Opera 5.12 by next Tuesday - done
>
>    10.LG: Review Accrobat Reader by next Tuesday - done
>
>gr: editor of module of AU technique document. review of report by company
>is critical, 10 days time to review-then made public, errors corrected, and
>manufacturer comments included.
>jg: talked with Judy Brewer about reviews. No formal policy yet. Review can
>change at any time. What does group want. sent do company first or make
>public first then review.
>jg: in AU is there a procedure
>gr: talking about setting a procedure, in response to feedback after TR. AU
>wants to take procedure to committee as a model. review is completed by
>following a set of tasks to get consistency or review. then put it database
>(xml/xsl) in future. current reviews are html, and pass/fail ratings. want
>more regimented performance evaluation for product comparison.
>jg: not formally saying you have 2 weeks
>gr: right, would like to make it formal
>jg: Judy will bring this issue to Coordination Group and  W3.
>gr: also good for QA activities
>
>Discussion
>
>     1.SVG comments - SVG has commented (not public yet) - this is a hold up
>for CR
>
>jg: key components for CR
>documenting implementation experience
>for no implementation, develop timeline for when we expect to have
>implementation
>hoping to do this by first week of September (not likely)
>with f2f meeting, get feedback from developers about implementation
>timelines. so reality is late September for CR.
>Only advantage for CR is (people could still send comments, but document is
>frozen)
>if no implementation for all requirements - extend CR for some time then
>move to PR
>or, drop requirement, and go back to last call for comments about dropping
>requirement, then move to PR
>we want to get implementation and move on.
>
>     2.User agent FTF meeting
>            Update on participation - 12 people registered. Still trying to
>get someone from Netscape/Mozilla to come, only one AT developer registered
>(Madenta), will have telecon for AT developers (Henter-Joyce and GW Micro).
>Still a gap from multimedia folks (Microsoft will come, but no response from
>Real networks). Microsoft, IBM, HP (Lee Bateman) will be coming. Need to set
>telecon times - AT compatibility and Multimedia Checkpoints.
>
>**Action JG  set telecon times - AT compatibility and Multimedia
>(Audio/Video) Checkpoints (Thursday- early morning)
>draft agenda by next week
>            Agenda
>               1.Assistive technology compatibility
>               2.Automated testing for built-in accessibility features -
>Microsoft is working on this.
>               3.Multi-media player implementation issues
>               4.Demos: Adobe, Trident-IE6, Multi-media players
>            Telephone bridge
>gr: O'Shea is working on unified glossary and is interested in our
>terminology
>** JG add other implementation issues (from implementation report) to f2f
>meeting
>
>     3.Implementation report
>       http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2.html
>gr: review implementation report and sent comments. when going through
>detail view, found comments to be confusing.
>jg: yes comments need to make sense out of context.
>gr: all comments should be "positive" "negative" or "NA"
>jg: comments depend on checkpoint, not to detailed, list things that are
>missing. developed a list of conditional content. will be cleaning up IE
>review.
>jg: removing view by score. will be using review by "rating", max
>conformance column = C for conformance, average conformance column - to get
>an idea of what checkpoints are giving developers the most problem. New
>style sheet. will be a link to take to comments from general report.
>gr: also in summary view, since there is expectation that document is
>stabilized. if short one liner of checkpoint text should link to actual
>check point.
>jg: working on it.
>gr: concern about proliferation of short mnemonics with out link to actual
>content. public perception will be short mnemonic.
>dp: problem with template in IE, it looks like code.
>jg: it is supposed to look like code. HB wants to modify DTD to make it
>easier to edit. goal: windows or Java application to do editing. have GR or
>DP have experience using windows access bridge for java.
>dp: there are problems with edit interaction. can read but no editing
>gr: still difficult
>jg: if I were to develop simple tool (prefer Java to run anywhere) with
>simple interface to edit. add comments to previous review. how to comment on
>a comment.
>gr: discuss with HB, use of url assertions. Sean Palmer can show how to do
>this.
>jg: how does this work
>gr: works with rdf triplets. can pull out comparisons between different
>comments/reviewers. can filter
>jg: is assertion included in report or point to something else
>gr: yes. would be good to have separate document. and pass off to EARL.
>jg: will talk with Palmer about how to do this. would be good for people to
>review comments. good idea. need to understand more about assertions.
>jg: need to assign new reviews. need multimedia players.
>dp: do you still need Openbook review.
>jg: there is a new voice browser, WeMedia.  www.webspeakster.com need to
>test version 2.0
>gr: was going look at voice in/out browser from university of Geneva (two
>weeks)
>**action dp and gr - review windows media player, and may look at
>webspeakster
>gr: difficulty because only using 1 hand.
>
>

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
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 Monday, 27 August 2001 09:10:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:58 GMT