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

Re: SUmmary of Resolutions from 18 teleconference

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:23:31 -0500
Message-Id: <200201222023.PAA4838590@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, rayw@netscape.com, plh@w3.org, lehors@us.ibm.com, shane@aptest.com, gleng@freedomscientific
At 02:52 PM 2002-01-22 , Jon Gunderson wrote:
>The following is my summary of the UAAG teleconference on the 18th.  Please 
>let me know if people have a different view of my conclusions or additional 
>information.
>

AG:: Thank you, indeed, Jon, for this fine summary.

I hope that my comments will meet your standards for 'further information.'

Editorial nit: the meeting was on 17 January 2002, not 18 January.

>Thanks,
>Jon
>
>1. Resolved
>There will be two boolean tests available on a node for event 
>handlers.  One to test if a node will respond to a particular event (node 
>is in the event path) and one to test if the event handler is actually on 
>this specific node.
>
>Action DOM: DOM working group will return with the specifications for UAAG 
>review

AG:: DOM should regard the description of the structure of the interface as
provided in 'resolved' as a good example of an interface delivering the
required capability.  DOM, if they find that some restructuring of the
interface fits better with the operation, or even the 'culture,' of the rest of
the DOM should propose the DOM-fitting detailed interface structure as a
possible friendly amendment, so long as the same information is exposed with
comparable burden on the User Agent employing the information.

>
>2. There is a proposal from Ray for getting a list of event listeners and 
>descriptions from the DOM.
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0020.html>http:
//lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0020.html
>
>Action DOM: DOM working group will return with specifications for UAAG review
>Action UAAG/PF: Review Rays's draft for possible usage problems by AT
>
>3. HTML working group with PF needs to continue wouking on:
>a. Device independent event mapping
>b. A means to define and associate descriptions of events with event 
>handlers (see proposal by Ray in 2).
>
>Action: HTML and PF

AG:: .. And bring back for UA review for possible usage problems by AT when
HTML and PF have arrived at what they think may be a solution.

Al

>  
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 15:23:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:03 GMT