- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:32:37 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 13 Jun 2002
Agenda announcement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0187
Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Tim
Lacy, Harvey Bingham, Matt May, David Poehlman
Regrets: Marisa Demeglio, Eric Hansen, Jim Allan, Jill Thomas
Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger
Previous meeting: 6 June 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
Next meeting: 20 June, 2pm ET
Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/
==========
Discussion
==========
1. Resolve remaining proposals for checkpoints with low
implementation experience
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/06/checkpoint-overview
---------------
Checkpoint 10.1
---------------
IJ: Two main issues about 10.1 were:
a) Access to conditional content. For example, "summary"
and <caption> are covered by checkpoint 2.3.
b) Rendering of cell-header relationships. Not covered
elsewhere.
IJ: As written, my experience with developers is that they
don't know when they've satisfied this checkpoint.
JG: I think this checkpoint is important, but I agree that
10.1 is distilled into a more vague requirement.
JG: For low vision users (using magnifiers), it's important
to have relationships clear.
IJ: We don't, for example, have a table navigation checkpoint.
Instead, we talk about general structure navigation (already
a bit vague) and indicate table navigation as something
useful.
IJ: See HTML spec on scope/headers in HTML 4:
"The headers and scope attributes also allow authors to help
non-visual user agents process header information. Please
consult the section on labeling cells for non-visual user
agents for information and examples."
IJ: I think that these two are not meant primarily for
graphical user agents.
JG: I don't know what implementation we have for
these attributes.
/* David Poehlman joins */
DP: As far as I know, HPR doesn't render "scope". Jaws renders
both "CAPTION" and "summary".
IJ: Proposal -
1) Make 10.1 an audio output only checkpoint.
2) Other conditional content covered by 2.3.
HB: Spreadsheet programs let you freeze headers, so we
have that implementation experience.
Action DP: Find out what HPR does with 'headers' attribute.
Find out what Jaws will do with scope/headers attributes.
Action TL: Report back on support for THEAD/TFOOT in IE.
Action MM: Report back on support for THEAD/TFOOT in
Opera, Mozilla (Windows)
Action IJ: Report back on support for THEAD/TFOOT for
some Unix user agents.
Action JG: Report back on support for THEAD/TFOOT for
Mac IE.
Resolved (noting that conditional content reqs are covered by
2.3):
1) For graphical user agents, grid rendering is a
sufficient technique.
2) If we can find two graphical implementations
of fixed headers by 20 June, then make that an
explicit requirement.
TL: I'm ok with that.
3) For audio user agents, make the rendering requirement
to have at least two options: those specified by
the 'speak-header' attribute in CSS2 (read once, read
for each cell). This checkpoint would be split off
and be part of the 'Speech' label group.
4) It's a good idea to keep the current 10.1 wording
somewhere since it explains the goal well.
IJ: Note that we do not specify how associations between cells
and headers are made.
DP: How consistent is part three with the rest of the
document.
JG: We will talk about this in one week, taking into
account results of our findings.
--------------
Checkpoint 4.6
--------------
JG: We don't have implementation experience for caption
positioning. IJ suggested that the requirement be rewritten to be
"config to ensure that text not obscured by the background."
There was support from Jim Allan and Charles for this (though he
notes that may not be easy to verify in practice).
JG: Given this change, we would have the following implementation
experience:
MS WMP: Yes.
Quicktime: For quick text tracks, if not used with SMIL, user
(when content available) can reposition track. Not
fun, but do-able.
IJ: Is 4.6 a special case of 4.3 (global config for fg and bg
colors)?
JG: Yes, I like the idea that 4.3 includes caption text (or
any text track).
IJ summarizing access issues:
a) Text is obscured by background (visual impairments)
The proposal covers this.
b) Background is obscured by text (visual impairments)
Turning off captions would satisfy this.
c) Text must be moved in closer (low vision).
JG: What about when the caption track is displayed
as text but isn't text source?
IJ: Not covered by 4.3 then.
JG: E.g., quicktext movie. RealText and SAMI and SMIL
have true text tracks.
Proposal:
- Keep requirement as "don't obscure"
- Indicate that color fg/bg (4.3) control is a sufficient
technique.
IJ: Need to define "not obscured" to mean that the
text can be read (e.g., the captions track is above
the video track or disconnected from it, text background
makes text legible, etc.).
IJ: Is text with a transparent background satisfactory?
IJ: What about turning off captions as a requirement?
JG: Some things are open-captioned; user doesn't have
control.
Resolved for 4.6:
- Allow configuration so that captions are not obsured
by the associated video track.
- Sufficient techniques:
a) Render captions in separate viewport.
b) Allow user to control caption text background and
foreground colors per 4.3.
- Other useful functionalities:
a) Turn off captions (so that background not obsured).
b) Allowing positioning is useful for users with low
vision and hearing impaired (or for users who
with low vision who aren't native language speakers).
- Recall the definition of "recognize" here (notably
for open caption formats).
- The user agent is not required to make the captions
background transparent when those captions are rendered
above a related video track.
---------------------------------------
Checkpoint 5.5: Confirm form submission
---------------------------------------
JG: We have experience (IE, Mozilla (see SSL settings), Opera)
for control of form submissions when being done in an insecure
context.
IJ: This shows that this functionality can be implemented.
Should be even easier in *all* situations. I support this
checkpoint and don't think it's hard to do. I would like to argue
that we keep the checkpoint, list this as experience, and
continue to lobby.
DP: A lot of times, authors implement warnings before
submitting. I don't think that there should be a functionality
in UAs when authors don't provide a chance to confirm.
/* TL leaves */
Resolved
- Keep checkpoint 5.5.
- Use security-specific implementation experience as
evidence.
---------------------------------------
Checkpoint 3.6: Toggle redirects
---------------------------------------
JG: Recall that 3.5 (Refresh) we are keeping without
the alert.
Resolved: Move 3.6 from P2 checkpoint to informative
Note under 3.5. We note that the user gets the final
content anyway (after the redirect), perhaps with
mild confusion due to unexpected change.
-----------------
Open Action Items
-----------------
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: Add implementation of Checkpoint 3.1 from Konqueror
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
JG: Add user style sheets for outline view requirements in Konqueror,
Opera, Amaya and IE to implementation report for Checkpoint 10.5
Outline view
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
JG: Acrobat 5.0 generates a navigation view, so implementation of
Checkpoint 10.5
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
JG: Add user style sheets as an implementation of configuring
outline view,
checkpoint 9.10
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
JG: Add implementation of 5.3 Manual viewport open with Mozilla,
Konqueror
and Snufin
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
JG: Add to implementation report of Checkpoint 4.4:
PlexTalk by Plextor (audio, http://www.plextalk.org/)
Victor Reader by VisuAide (audio, http://www.visuaide.com/dtbsol)
Victor Soft reader by VisuAide (audio, http://www.visuaide.com/dtbsol)
LpPlayer by Labyrinten (audio, http://www.labyrinten.se/english/index)
eNounce (audio and video, http://www.enounce.com/)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
----------------------
Completed Action Items
----------------------
1. IJ: Ask the Director whether the content type label approach
is reasonable for Checkpoints 1.2, 9.5, 9.6
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
2. IJ: Ian will check with Opera on implementation of toggle
content refresh
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
Result: Does not currently support this requirement
3. JA: Jim will test IBM HPR to see what it does when a language is not
supported
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0177
Result: HPR does not support announcing un-recognized languages
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 15:35:18 UTC