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

Raw minutes from 14 Feb 2002 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:13:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6C1A85.7000705@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference
14 Feb 2002

Agenda announcement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0054

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

Regrets: Lee Bateman, Jim Allan, Denis Anson

Previous meeting: 24 January 2002
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0038

Next meeting: 21 Feb

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

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

--------------------
1. Status report on evaluations.
--------------------

  * IJ working on Opera evaluation.
  * DP working on evaluation of IE6 with Jaws 4.01 on Windows XP
    JG: This will help us with access keys and navigation to
        headers.
  * IJ awaiting Netscape evaluation results.
  * JG not much progress on IE 6 evaluation.
  * IJ no news from Apple (Quicktime) and Mac IE, though I have
    reason to believe we may get reports from them.

Action IJ: Ping Judy about Macromedia review.

--------------------
2. Charter update
--------------------

  Revised charter:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/charter-20011218

  See "Current Patent Practice"
    http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice

TL: I can't make any statement in favor or not. But I've sent
the heads-up to the legal department. I expect I will get an
answer back this afternoon.

IJ: I will not send to the AC until I hear back.

RS: I need to talk to the AC rep about this.

JG, DP, HB: I am ok with new IPR provision.

Action RS and TL: Let Ian know whether IBM and MS, respectively,
approve change to charter. Deadline 21 Feb 2002.

/* HB joins, gives nod to new IPR section */

---------------------------------
3. Implementation report update
---------------------------------

JG: Added WMP and Grins player evaluations. See revised
report:
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2-checkpoint-summary

JG: Please do evaluations in terms of checkpoints not yet implemented.

IJ: Comment on implementation report: move summary table and
yet-unimplemented checkpoints to the home page (rather than the
summary page).

/* TL leaves */

RS: Please include version information in supported format
information.

JG: What helps in the reviews is when people write down
support for  the specific accessibility features. More detail
is much more helpful.

---------------------------------
4. UAAG 1.0 v. 508 Comparision
---------------------------------

Refer to IJ and JG comparison:
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/02/uaag10-508

JG: Conclusion: The two documents are quite different.

IJ: I think that WAI IPO will be following up on 508-related
stuff, so that UAWG's job should be considered done for now.
If they need us, they can call us.

DP: Section 508 accessibility forum is looking to compare
and contrast various guidelines. Can this comparison be used
outside of the UAWG context?

IJ: This is a public document. Feel free to show it to
people, but please emphasize its draft status. Also, if you
want to organize a joint teleconf, that might be good.

JG: Sure.

DP: A couple of possibilities: inviting people to our teleconf, or
having a seminar.

---------------------------------
5. Test suites
---------------------------------

JG: I have some students starting to work on test suites.
A preliminary set of test suite requirements is available:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/reqs-20020208

Action IJ: Forward this link to the QA Working Group.

---------------------------------
6. Where we are
---------------------------------

RS: Do we have a deadline at which point we will stop
gathering evaluations and make choices on moving forward?

IJ: I'd like to wait at least four weeks for incoming
evaluations, then meet and discuss next steps.

JG: We need to focus on what we don't have implementation
for, not just getting more evaluations.

Next meetings:

  * 21 February (expect to finalize charter, look at more reviews)
  * 28 Feb, 7 Mar no meetings
  * 14 March: Discuss where we are and next steps.
  * 21 March canceled (CSUN)
  * 28 March (Regrets: DP)

=================
Open action items
=================

HB: Contact ION Systems for a review of their e-reader with UAAG
guidelines
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0082
HB: I will ping Jill Thomas (jill@ionsystems.com). Pinged Tom
yesterday.
     DP: When I last talked to Jill a couple of months ago, she said
     that Tom was the appropriate contact.

=================
Closed action items
=================

RS: Follow up on IBM software that might contribute to list
      of implementations.
     IJ: I will followup offline.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0135

DOM WG: See summary by Charles:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0056

  "Ray made a proposal. UA and PF need to review it and see if it makes
  sense and we would like this. THen we ask DOM and whoever else is
  relevant to accept the proposal, and then we get something from them
  to review."

  IJ: The DOM 3 Events spec has been revised:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20020208

  "Interface EventTarget
   The Event interface has one new attribute: eventListenerList."


=================
Dropped action items
=================

UAAGWG: Review Ray's proposal related to DOM API to access
descriptions of event listeners

IJ: This is in PF's court now.





-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 15:17:37 GMT

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