- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:30:09 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 8 August 2002
[Note: This is a resend; I don't know why these didn't
make it to the list yesterday.]
Agenda announcement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0082.html
Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
Harvey Bingham, Eric Hansen, Matt May, Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Jim Allan, Lee Bateman, Tim Lacy, David Poehlman
Previous meeting: 25 July 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0051
Next meeting: 15 August, 2pm ET
To coordinate implementation report.
Reference document 7 August 2002 Working Draft
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20020807/
==========
Discussion
==========
-------------------------------------------
1. Comments on 7 August UAAG working draft?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20020807/
IJ: Many thanks to Eric, Harvey, and others for comments
on the document. The last call draft will be the 7 August
draft, plus the revised 6.4 (see below), and possibly
minor edits. Congratulations!
---------------------------------------
2. Revised provisions to checkpoint 6.4
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0087
EH: Notes seem open-ended to me.
IJ: Even with their informative status?
IJ: Provision 1 does not establish a minimal set of
types of graphical objects. But in practice, APIs provide
access to graphical objects. These things are done in
practice, however. Same for provision 2.
EH: I have no objections.
JG: This is to help resolve the schism between what's on the
screen and invalid HTML.
RS: Screen coordinates more important than relative coords.
IJ: Can you get viewport position from system and then add
relative coords?
RS: Yes, I think so, on most systems. Experience is that
ATs need screen coordinates.
JG: Seems like we should require screen coordinates, with
a Note about conversion from relative to absolute.
IJ: What's clearest definition of screen coordinates?
RS: Pixel position relative to the desktop.
IJ: What about the classic cases of four physical monitors
on one virtual screen, or four virtual screens and one
physical monitor?
EH: "Relative to the point of origin in the
graphical environment (e.g., with respect to the
desktop not the viewport)."
IJ: Should we say "pixels" (i.e., specify the units)?
RS: I think it's sufficient to not say pixels. Those skilled
in the art know what you're talking about.
RS: MSAA provides implementation experience for provisions
1 and 2.
IJ: We have comments from Mozilla, Opera, Adobe, Microsoft,
and IBM that these things are already done in practice,
and from IBM and Alva (and earlier comments from AI-squared)
that these requirements are important.
JG: Note that the proposal requires less information about
text than the previous version. [Nobody objected to
this change.]
Resolved:
* Accept proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0087
* Accept this clarification that "coordinates" are
relative to the point of origin in the
graphical environment (e.g., with respect to the desktop
not the viewport).
* Don't mention specific units (e.g., pixels) in the requirement.
------------------------------------------------
3. Updating Implementation Report for Proposed Recommendation
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2
JG: Matt, Ian, Colin Koteles, and I met in Chicago last week.
Lots of progress since then, including:
3a) Evaluation report (still in early stages of development)
to produce implementation reports from an HTML form.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/08/06-evalform
MM: You can fill out the form, activate "generate xml" at
the end of the page. It will use javascript to produce
an implementation report in xml in a text area. You can
cut and paste to a file; as the eval form evolves, it will
become easier to use. So far, it works in Mozilla. I am
trying to make it work in other UAs that don't support
DOM Level 2. I suggest testing it with your browser first.
3b) New implementation report DTD (based on our experience).
3c) Progress on UAAG 1.0 draft test suite.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/html401/
JG: Tests can be incorporated in implementation reports.
JG: The hurdle before last call is converting old implementation
reports to new version. Matt's form will assist in this
process.
/* Discussion about evaluations, implementation reports */
JG: The evaluation report is not just to get out of CR:
1) It's important (as are the tests) to pointing out
to developers limitations in their implementations.
2) It's important to back up UAAG 1.0.
IJ: Here is my approximation of how old checkpoints migrated
to new checkpoints:
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/ua-diffs
IJ: See also "How to evaluate a user agent for conformance
to UAAG 1.0"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/eval
Actions:
HB: Create new evaluation of Opera.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/eval_win_opera6.html
EH: Create new evaluation of Acrobat reader.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/eval_win_pdfreader5
MM: Create new evaluation of Mozilla
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/eval_win_mozilla6
JG: Create new evaluation of GW Micro and Jaws
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/eval_win_wineyes411
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/eval_win_jaws402
Deadline: 13 August.
To do before last call:
* Incorporate new checkpoint 6.4 per today's discussion.
* Document checkpoints with low implementation experience.
* Update implementation report summary.
IJ: I don't think we need to send formal responses to
reviewers who raised CR issues, since we raised them as
a working group during the course of evaluations. The
broader audience will have the chance to comment on
those decisions in last call.
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 11:33:27 UTC