W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2002

Raw minutes from 4 April 2002 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:41:04 -0500
Message-ID: <3CACBA60.3090005@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 4 Apr 2002

Agenda announcement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0016

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
David Poehlman, Tim Lacy (MS), Harvey Bingham

Regrets: Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM), Eric Hansen, Lee Bateman (HP),
Jost Eckhardt

Absent: Jim Allan, Denis Anson

Previous meeting: 28 Mar 2002
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0120

Next meeting: 11 April, 2pm ET.
   DP: I'm likely to be late.

Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/

==========
Discussion
==========

0. Preface
TL: Is there another browser that implements MSAA?
JG: Netscape is. IBM HPR is, indirectly. Not sure whether
they implement additional interfaces.
DP: ION systems apparently implements MSAA.

JG: TL, ask this question on the mailing list if you wish.

1. Implementation Report Update
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2.html

JG: Pending reports from Mac IE and Jaws/IE; I just need to
encode them in our DTD. The Jaws/IE evaluation will help us out
in terms of getting features implemented.

2. Discussion of problems with requirements of Checkpoint 10.3
    and a few others:

Refer to proposal from IJ and JG:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0021

IJ:
  a) In 10.x.1 to say "highlighting each of the
     following mechanisms...not just a single mechanism."

  b) In 10.x.3: say "distinguishable from each other."

  c) IN 10.x.5: Talk about client-side image maps.

IJ: Rewrite 2 and 3. to read something like:

  "For graphical user agents, provide five visual highlight
  mechanisms that do not rely on text fg and bg color alone, and
  ensure that there is at least one configuration where each of
  the five classes of information uses a different non-text color
  highlight mechanism."

IJ: In second Note, point out the example of inheriting
OS-level settings, e.g., for selection.

JG: Note that this checkpoint is stronger now, since inheriting
color-based conventions is no longer sufficient.

IJ: Fix 10.y in light of 2./3. merge.

JG: More than text fg/bg color is not just for users
with macular degeneration; for some users shapes are easier
to use.

DP: Non-text may also help some users with cognitive
disabilities.

IJ: The point is that here it's P1 to be able to
configure highlight.

HB: I think these are good clarifications.
TL: This sounds clearer to me; I have no objections.
DP: This is helpful.

Resolved:
  * Accept proposal with editorial changes. Note changes
    in priority carefully. In essence, the requirements are
    the same, but the priorities have been inverted
    (Configurability: P1, easy of configurability: P2).

Action IJ: Send a revision of the proposal with editorial
changes to the list.

Action IJ: Add issue - should we delete fee link requirements
in UAAG 1.0 since not part of today's Web?

Action JG: Write up user scenarios for why non-text-based
highlighting important for users; notably which users.

3. Issues raised during CR evaluations:

Set 1:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0085

(1) Can checkpoints 6.1 and 6.2 be satisfied if the APIs are not
available out-of-process?

JG: I think this an implementation detail.

TL: I don't think you need to define whether export has to
be in process or not.

JG: Is use of MSAA considered in or out-of-process?

TL: My understanding is that MSAA exports out of process; I am
not sure and will confirm.

No resolution for lack of resources.

Action IJ: Ask this question to Rich and Aaron on the list.

(2) Add a section to the document explaining how other
specifications can create profiles of UAAG 1.0 conformance. For
instance, if the FOO specification wants to require FOO user
agents to conform to UAAG 1.0 in a particular manner, what
should/must the FOO spec say?

IJ: I want to talk about two things:
  a) Informal adoption of UAAG requirements (which is fine).
  b) Talking about "conformance to UAAG 1.0", which
     requires a well-defined profiling mechanism.

JG: Right, you can't talk about piecemeal conformance.

IJ: Things I want to avoid in a profile:

  a) "You don't have to satisfy Guideline 12"
  b) "You don't have do do checkpoint X.Y"
  c) "You're not allowed to say something doesn't apply."

IJ: In short, a profile will be pretty much like a well-formed
claim.

JG: I think we should go through another WG while doing this.
I don't think we want people to satisfy requirements piecemeal.

IJ: I think that getting any features implemented is a good
thing; you can't stop developers from incorporating or
referencing piecemeal (and you don't want to stop them from doing
so! let's make things more accessibility!).  But you can't talk
about conformance and piecemeal implementation in the same
breath.

JG: I have concerns that other specs will undermine UAAG
if requirements are imported piecemeal.

DP: Some specs won't need all of UAAG 1.0. Rather than re-invent,
they should import it; this is also a good plug for UAAG 1.0.

Resolved: Add a section to UAAG 1.0 about conformance profiles.
Action IJ: Propose text to the UAWG on conformance profiles.

(3) UAAG 1.0 needs to be clearer about the fact that a user agent
is not required to satisfy all requirements for all implemented
formats. I believe the document already says this, but it's not
easy to find.

Resolved: Editorial. Agree to clarify this point.

JG: What about "turn off all images"; does that mean all
GIF images only?

IJ: Argh; good point.

Action IJ: Add this question to the issues list: Are there some
requirements that must be satisfied for *all formats*
corresponding to a given content type label, even when a claim is
for fewer than all implemented formats corresponding to that
label?

(4) Make clearer up front (e.g., at the beginning of section 2,
not just the conformance section) that a user agent can conform
to fewer than all the checkpoints.

Resolved: Editorial. Agree to clarify this point.

=============
Old Action Items
=============

---------
Completed
---------

1) IJ and Jill Thomas: Coordinate on E-Monocle evaluation.
IJ: We will meet tomorrow.

2) RS: Talk to Arnaud Le Hors about this issue, for re-raising
in the DOM WG.

---------
Open
---------

1) RS: Write up paragraph about the importance of
    thread-safe access for in-process ATs.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0100.html

ALL: Send to the WG the top 5 things you need through an API.
Status: We got 3 replies this week.
IJ: I'm starting to collate the responses.




-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 15:41:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:07 GMT