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

Minutes of 19 Sep 2002 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:08:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3D8A20CB.8060707@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

UAWG teleconference, 19 Sep 2002

Agenda announcement:

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
Harvey Bingham, Matt May, Jim Allan, Tim Lacy, Eric Hansen,
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: David Poehlman

Previous meeting: 22 August 2002

Next meeting: 26 Sep, 2pm ET
  (In case additional issues are raised.)

Reference document 21 August 2002 Last Call draft


1. Next face-to-face meeting

JG: I suggest next meeting in Boston, during all-WG week,
first week in March (announcement to Chairs [1]).

Would like to attend then: JG, HB, IJ, MM, JA (funding permitting), RS
TL: My schedule is such that end of February is not good for me.

   [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002JulSep/0011

2. C-SUN paper presentation on Test Suites (proposals due October 1st)

JG: Does anyone who is not already submitting a paper wish to
co-author a paper on test suites and evaluations related to
user agents?

Expect to be at CSUN (17-22 March): JA, HB, JG, MM

/* Jon and Jim to discuss co-authoring a paper */

3. Last call issues

List of commenters here, under "Fourth last call"

JG: We have extended deadline for two W3C Groups (HTML WG and
I18N WG) to ensure that we have adequate input. It shouldn't alter
our schedule. We expect comments from they no later than next
Tuesday (24 Sep).

JG: Two issues raised so far.

Issue 546 [2]: Increased granularity necessary (e.g., individual
scripting languages on/off).
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#546

IJ: Should checkpoint 3.4 be on a per-scripting language basis?

RS: Most people won't know which technologies will be used. I think
people want the larger switch ("all executable content").

JA: I would agree with that.

RS: Not enough information readily available to users to make
an intelligent decision on a per-technology basis.

IJ: Is it sufficient to have 12 switches to turn off 12
scripting languages (thus satisfying 3.4)?

TL: In IE, we distinguish java applets from active scripting.

JG: Opera similar to IE and Netscape.

JG: For things like animation, UA may not be able to recognize the
animation effect through scripting (so no control required).


  * No change to 3.4.
  * Add to techniques document information that (1) per-scripting
    language switches may be useful, but also (2) a global switch
    is important since users may not understand which technologies
    are in use.
  * The fact that turning off Javascript also turns off support
    for style sheets is an implementation issue, and one that
    affects (confuses) all users, not just users with

Action IJ: Fix cross reference from 1.1 to 1.3 (should be to
checkpoint 1.2).

Issue 545 [3]: Checkpoint 6.5: Require DOM HTML to ensure
                that form values available through API
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#545

 From DOM WG:

  "We believe that 6.5 should require the HTML DOM in addition to
  requiring the core DOM.  The reason for this is that there are
  certain current values or states of forms that are not available
  through the core DOM, but only through the HTML DOM.

IJ: DOM Level 1 HTML is broken. DOM Level 2 HTML is not yet
a Recommendation.

JG: We can add a Note about the current state of DOM Level 2
HTML Module, and indicate what information may not be available
from the DOM 2 Core module (e.g., current form values). We should
document this, but I don't think we should add this as a
requirement today.

RS: In Guidelines or techniques?

JG: I'd prefer in Guidelines, since this is an important issue.

TL, RS, EH: I agree.


  * Add a note to the Guidelines indicating that DOM 2 Core may
    not provide all information in an HTML Doc and that
    implementers should track the maturation of DOM 2 HTML Module
    which is expected to provide access to that information.

4. Implementation reports and test suites.

JG: Draft test suite updated:

JG: We need to validate that the test suite tests actually
     validate the requirements of the document. Jim has been
     working with the tests (as has Matt, Ian).

RS: I am swamped, but I suggest asking Cathy Laws if HPR
     folks are interested in test suite progress.

EH: What is the status of our interaction with the ATIA?

JG: We've had some discussions with Randy Marsden.

EH: Do we have ongoing discussions?

Action JG: Contact Randy about UAWG test suite work.

MM: I am at ATAG ftf meeting. ATIA has contacted us about
getting involved; that's ongoing. We should have more information
about coordination shortly.

MM: IMS Global Learning Consortium is working on a schema for
identifying user preferences, including accessibility issues
(ACC-LIP). Some IMS people are in the ATAG WG.

HB: Dublin Core folks are asking about guidance on extending
access issues to Dublin Core. I'll send the UAWG the Dublin
Core's request.

MM: So I am likely to be conduit for ATIA and IMS liaisons.

5. Next steps for UAAG 1.0

  * Finish resolving issues
  * Meet with Director to request to advance to PR.
  * Need to start

Open actions

1. JG: Write up user scenarios for why non-text-based highlighting
    important for users; notably which users.


For additional questions:

Completed actions

2. JG: Add to implementation report of Checkpoint 4.4:

Done (based on claims on these companies' Web sites)
  2. Victor Reader by VisuAide (audio, http://www.visuaide.com/dtbsol)
  4. LpPlayer by Labyrinten (audio, 

Not done:
  1. PlexTalk by Plextor (audio, http://www.plextalk.org/)
  5. eNounce (audio and video, http://www.enounce.com/)


Dropped actions

3. TL: Check with microsoft testing people about participation in WG.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 15:13:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:32 UTC