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

Raw minutes from 11 Apr 2002 UAWG teleconf

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:33:08 -0400
Message-ID: <3CB5E4F4.90803@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 11 Apr 2002

Agenda announcement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0041

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
Tim Lacy, Jost Eckhardt, Harvey Bingham

Regrets: David Poehlman, Jim Allan, Jill Thomas

Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger

Previous meeting: 4 April 2002
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

Next meeting: 18 April, 2pm ET.

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

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

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

JB: New entries in report: Jaws/IE, Mac IE, Accessible Browser
Project.

JB: There are some inaccuracies, however, for 3.4 alert
requirement (2) is not implemented to my knowledge.

IJ: The moral of the story is that the evaluation has to be down
to the provision level, not an average over the checkpoint.

IJ: I've started an evaluation with ION Systems.

IJ: Other ones I'm hoping for: Konqueror. I've not heard back
from Apple.

Action JG: Clarify why "Max rating" used in some cases (in low
implementation experience section) and "Avg rating" in some cases.
Also, delete "+/-" with P (round down from G to P).

---------------
2. Test Suites
http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/courses/2002-01-LIS350AR/project/html/index.html

JG: I'd like to move this information to the W3C site, but ok to
link to this from UA home page for now. There are still a fair
number of things to do on this HTML test suite. These test suites
will become more important as more and more implementers will
want to evaluate UAs for conformance.

Action HB: Find out what SVG WG is doing these days in the way of
test suites, and find out how to get UAAG 1.0 requirements
incorporated.

---------------
3. Issues
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2

/* Jost Eckhardt leaves */

Issue 521
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#521

IJ: There seems to be a set of requirements related to formats
that depend on the format, and some that don't.  So, for example,
we want the UA to turn off *all images*, not just images in a
format used for conformance. In some cases, we don't punish
developers for implementing additional formats (even if
inaccessibly). In some case, we may not care what the format is
(e.g., "just turn off all images, whatever the format).

IJ: This is also related to Content Type labels. We may not need
Image content type label when you look closely at the
requirements.

TL: I agree that there seem to be two classes of
formats. Different markup languages will be treated different
than specific elements within that markup language. Suppose your
UA implements markup languages A, B, and C. And the user can
control font size changes in A, but not in B.

IJ: One way I was thinking about these things:
  a) If non-conformance interferes with other requirements (or
     accessibility), then the requirement is format-independent.

  b) If non-conformance does not interfere with other
     requirements, then requirement is format-specific.

IJ: Note that the granularity of evaluations should be down to
the format (e.g., I do 1.1 for HTML but not for SVG).

Resolved: In section 3.9 (Conformance) change "should" to "must"
for "Information about which specifications have been implemented
to satisfy the requirements of the document (e.g., those of
guideline 6 and guideline 8)."

Action IJ: Review UAAG 1.0 for which checkpoints should be
"all formats" v. "formats that are part of the claim".

Issue 524
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#524

Resolved:

  * Sufficient technique for 3.1 to turn off just background
    images or all images (former preferred).
  * However, since that disadvantages users who can use images,
    we recommend turning off background images independent of
    other images.
  * We are not including a P2 requirement to turn off
    background images but leave other images on.

=================
Completed Action Items
=================

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

Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

IJ: Ask what the importance of in-process communication of the
DOM to Rich and Aaron on the list. Should it be part of the
requirement or be considered an implementation detail in certain
environments?

Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

IJ: Add 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?

Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

=================
Open Action Items
=================

IJ: Send proposal for Guideline 10 modifications based on today's
teleconference

Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

IJ: Propose text to the UAWG on conformance profiles for use by
other specifcations.

Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

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

Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
See HB comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0029

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

ALL: Send to the WG the top 5 things you need through an API.
Deadline: 4 April 2002


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 15:40:08 GMT

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