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

Raw minutes from 23 May 2002 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:31:18 -0400
Message-ID: <3CED4386.5070008@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 23 May 2002

Agenda announcement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0107

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Rich
Schwerdtfeger (IBM), Marissa Demeglio (JSPRD), Jim Allan, Tim
Lacy, David Poehlman, Aaron Leventhal

Regrets: Harvey Bingham, Eric Hansen

Previous meeting: 16 May 2002
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0090

Next meeting: 30 May, 2pm ET.
  RS: I'm on vacation week of 8 May

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

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

Welcome Marissa, from JSRPD: http://www.jsrd.or.jp/

-------------------
1. Issue 528:6.2, 6.3: Security issues in some cases for write
access to content. How to handle exceptions?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#528
-------------------

JA: Screen readers say "asterisk" when it's displayed on the
     screen.

JG: But you do have access programmatically.

AL: You could also listen to keyboard events through the OS.

IJ: Proposal was to consider security an orthogonal issue.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0105

DP: I suggest a different example than the asterisks since
     ATs already render the asterisks today.

JG: The example would be in the security section, not the
     checkpoints.

IJ: What about INPUT element, type="file". Tantek said they would
     never support programmatic control of that for security
     reasons.

TL: I tend to agree with Tantek here.

DP: I think we shouldn't treat special cases of security; I
    approve of the proposal to address security as orthogonal.

Resolved:
  - Consider security an orthogonal issue to UAAG 1.0
   requirements. IJ will add a section to next draft of
   document based on proposal.

-------------------
2. Issue 529: 6.1, 6.2: Is DOM required at P1, or some API?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#529
-------------------

a. Proposed modified checkpoints in Guideline 6:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0093

Overview issues: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/04/api-summary

RS: See my rationale for requiring DOM + documented bindings
even when non-normative.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0103

RS: You can implement features beyond the DOM.

IJ: The DOM Recommendation allows you to conform and do
more than the DOM Recommendation.

JG: RS's proposal is consistent with where we've been so
far.

TL: I agree with RS's proposal.

AL: Sounds fine with me.

IJ: Note that iSimpleDom (Netscape) will not satisfy the
checkpoint as proposed by Rich.

AL: Sounds reasonable.

AL: I don't think Jaws people are using the W3C DOM.

JG: The main problem with the DOM in MSIE is that repairs to
invalid markup are not same between rendering structure and DOM
representation.

MD: My one question: We would embed a browser and use existing
parsers. Would we expose that to ATs?

RS: Yes.

JG: But if you are using JDOM, that would not conform to DOM
Core.

MD: If we are going through a Digital Talking Book, highlighting
text and playing audio simultaneously. Suppose you send text to
refreshable braille display.

TL: At MS we expose the DOM a lot of ways. Basically, we provide
a COM interface (more than one).

MD: I've used IEDom.

TL: What is not very well-documented is the IMarkupServices
interface. This stores the stream (not parsed).

Resolved:

  - Accept IJ proposal for Guideline 6 with RS amendment to
    require DOM and documented non-normative bindings.

  - In checkpoint 6.2, recommend that UA developers produce
    consistent document object and rendering structure after
    repairs.

-------------
3. Issue 532: 6.9 (timely access): What "exchanges" does
this checkpoint refer to?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#532
-------------

Resolved:

  - Accept this clarification for 6.10: "For an API implemented to
  satisfy the requirements of this document, ensure that
  programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely manner."

----------
4. Issue 531: 3.4 (Toggle scripts): Most pages will include
scripts, so alert requirement will be so frequent as to not
be useful.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#531
----------

IJ: Proposal: # Require alert only when script alternative
content is available (e.g., NOSCRIPT or whatever the UA
recognizes as script alternative), whether scripts are turned on
or off. Related this to 2.3.

JG: I think it's also important to alert the user when scripts
are turned on and there is an alternative to scripts available
(e.g., NOSCRIPT in HTML). This would prompt the user who might
find the NOSCRIPT content more useful.

JG: We don't have implementation experience for this.

TL: I don't think many sites do anything with NOSCRIPT.

JA: They don't use NOEMBED much either.

Resolved (unanimously):

  - Remove the alert requirement.
  - Recommend to alert users that, when scripts are turned
    on and when alternative content to scripts is available,
    alert would be helpful.

----------
5. Issue 530: 2.2: Definition of, determination of "xml and sgml
applications" unclear. Rely on internet media types?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#530
----------

IJ: Proposal: drop 2.2 second bullet (all SGML and XML
applications regardless of Internet media type). The point
is that without MIME type, you don't know where to start.  You
can't sniff the content and tell reliably (apparently).

JG: Presumably we will drop the second requirement (SGML and
XML applications).

RS: Our transcoding experience suggests to me that you
can't guarantee 100% that you can tell what content is
by sniffing.

TL: I agree completely.

Resolved:

  - Delete "all SGML and XML applications, regardless of Internet
  media type (e.g., HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, SMIL, SVG, etc.)".

Action IJ: Report back to the WG to confirm that, without
MIME type, UA shouldn't have to guess.

JG: We'll talk about this again if IJ comes back with new
information.

---------------------------
6. Accessibility Forum meeting
http://www.accessibilityforum.org/
---------------------------

JG: Who is going to accessibility forum meeting in June
(in Washington, D.C.)?

DP: I am going.

JG: I won't be going. Some presentations will be Webcast.

DP: I'll bet Al Gilman is going.

DP: API discussions may move to ATIA.

JG: I have concerns with interoperability. Does the UAWG
have anything to offer w.r.t. to this initiative? E.g.,
promotion of the DOM? Apparently there will be discussion
about cross-platform APIs?

RS: I think it is a good thing if W3C proposes DOM as
cross-platform API as part of a solution.

DP: The WGs will meet on 3 June (Monday). That's when a lot of
the discussion will take place. Software and OS WG would be most
appropriate group, but they will be doing low-tech work. We're
not really sure that all technical work will go over to ATIA.

JG: Yes, this seemed to be more about how the government would
be asking for this stuff.

AL: I think the DOM is too heavy for most UI toolkits. I think it
also doesn't have what you need for UI.

JG: But you could create your own (XML) grammar.

AL: It seems like it would be a win to use the DOM for
everything, but Netscape's experience is that it's hard.

AL: Issues of read-only access.

JG: Issues of thread-safety.

/* More discussions about APIs */

DP: The understanding that I have is that the ATIA and
other companies are working on a spec to provide an
API to ATs. I think primarily based on Windows work
at this time.

JG: I am going to try to contact Randy Marsden.

AL: It would be good to have a proposal that people could
critique.

DP: Whatever process is used to work on these APIs, we need to
ensure that UAWG efforts and experience is taken into
account. Since participants (notably AT developers) are familiar
with our work, I think it's safe to say that our work will be
taken into account. But I agree that it would be valuable for the
UAWG to be in contact with people working on this.

/* Discussion about ATIA potentially not doing its work
    in a public forum */

IJ: I recommend that we invite them to a call to talk about
benefits of doing technical work in public.

-----------------
Open Action Items
-----------------

IJ: Review UAAG 1.0 for which checkpoints should be "all formats" v.
"formats that are part of the claim".
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0049

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 for additional questions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0029

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)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0049

JG: Contact developers for API requirements

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 15:33:41 GMT

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