W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2003

Minutes Apr. 10

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:13:05 -0500
To: WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-id: <HDEAKIPKOHBCMDILOOPNOEGFGBAA.jimallan@tsbvi.edu>

Jim Allan
Ian Jacobs
Jon Gunderson
Dave Poelman
Matt May
Kathy Laws
Tim Lacy
Shawn Stableford

[14:04:35] <Jon> Open Action Items
[14:04:49] <Jon> IBM HPR review
[14:05:06] <Ian> Action:    1.  JA and CL: Create implementation report
for IBM Home Page reader using HTML 4.01 test suites (27 Feb target
[14:05:18] <Ian> CL: I have the info; am putting into the right format
[14:05:22] <Ian> [Not done]
[14:05:42] <Ian> CL: I'll post test suite comments by tomorrow
[14:05:49] <Ian> Action MM: # Check into updating evaluation for to
included downloaded forms
[14:06:25] <Ian> MM: I need to check with systems team to see if there's
a way to capture output data; not done.
[14:06:33] <Ian> Action  JG: Repair test suites for frames
[14:06:42] <Ian> JG: I've repaired one; 3-4 more to go
[14:06:50] <Ian> Action MM:    5. Working on evaluation of Apple Safari
[14:07:19] <Ian> MM: I can post what I've got so far. Most of it was to
show Safari developers what they've done so far; I need to follow up
with them. Used the test suite.
[14:08:18] <Ian> ------------------
[14:08:20] <Ian> Announcements?
[14:08:43] <Ian> MM: I have been reviewing the SVG spec (on Chapter 12
so far). We discussed this at the ftf meeting.
[14:08:59] <Ian> JG: My students are developing tests for SVG; pilot
tests here:
[14:09:15] <Ian> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/svg/
[14:09:45] <Ian> JG: Besides Adobe plug-in and Batik, what are other SVG
user agents?
[14:10:07] <Ian> MM: Amaya does some SVG
[14:10:21] <Ian> SVG Implementations page:
[14:10:25] <Ian> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/SVG-Implementations.htm8
[14:11:11] <Ian> Covers:  SVG Viewers | Mobile SVG Viewers | Native SVG
Editors | SVG-exporting Editors | SVG Converters | Server-side SVG
generators |
[14:11:41] <Ian> JG: Any implied or defined functionalities that an SVG
player should have?
[14:12:02] <Ian> SVG Test suite: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/
[14:12:13] <Ian> JG: We are stealing our tests from their tests.
[14:12:37] <Ian> JG: But our take on the tests is different.
[14:13:20] <Ian> JG: Microsoft and SVG?
[14:13:49] <Ian> TL: For real SVG, we support the plug-in. There are
some internal formats that are experimental superset of SVG...
[14:14:25] <Ian> TL: We don't do complete SVG natively
[14:16:04] <Ian> ==========================
[14:16:14] <Ian> Current UAWG activities
[14:16:27] <Ian>  - xhtml 2.0 specification; draft comments.
[14:18:10] <Ian>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/02/xhtml2-comments.html
[14:20:22] <Ian> [discussion of xhtml 2 features]
[14:21:13] * Ian notes that galeon supports longdesc
[14:21:24] <Ian> + Jim Allan
[14:22:46] <Ian> JG: Expectation is that UAWG will own comments rather
than PF.
[14:23:40] <Ian> JG: After we forward to them, need to schedule time
with HTML WG to discuss them.
[14:25:25] <Ian> JG: We should take this opportunity to convey what
requirements we would have for consistent behavior across user agents.
[14:25:41] <Ian> + David Poehlman
[14:27:19] <Ian> IJ comments:
jg: xhtml comments
ij: schedule
jg: will talk with Gilman (PF), comments on working draft
ij: comments important. treat as last call comments
jg: this is a good time to comment and resolve issues. better than last
call. we have good knowledge of html and browser issues. perhaps get better
fixes. want to get default accessible browser behavior in the xhtml
specification. the thing that hurt us in html is no specific behavior
associated with elements. e.g. access key is a good example of mixed
ij: sent many comments xhtml wg. need to send to UA to incorporate in 1
ij: have not seen minutes from f2f meeting in Boston
*** Action IJ ping Pemberton at xhtml about minutes from f2f
*** Action JA HPR implementation report by May 1
jg: Implementation Report. at CSUN saw new version of Window Eyes. need to
get implementation reports on screen readers. do we want to work with
companies to make conformance claims?
ja: talked with Win Eyes people, seemed very interested in using test
jg: WinEyes has been working with group in special conference calls.
ij: we should work with company to make conformance claims. have done it in
the past.
jg: should we encourage them to make conformance claim
kl: we are working on this
*** action JG contact GW Micro about conformance claims
dp: Freedom Scientific has made some claims. Chris Hoffsteader is main
contact. They are interested. new items on their plate to implement.
*** Action DP to contact Freedom Scientific about conformance claims
jg: at f2f discussed modularization of guidelines, such as navigation
module. then others could make a conformance claim against the nav. module
ij: please explain
jg: with navigation we started with a long list, and whittled it down. if we
could create a nav. module with these features, that would provide guidance
to those who have not implemented the features. such as, header navigation,
map elements, list structures, etc.
ij: not going to get conformance at low cost. we could augment the
techniques document to make nav. more clear. otherwise we have to go through
recommendation track. high cost is uaag 2.0 with modularization. we could
revise techniques in a few weeks.
jg: difference between techniques and rec. is that rec. is more visible. not
valuable to company to say we do more in techniques than other company. but
conformance to new standard
ij: if you want conformance at other that current document, must go through
recommendation and redo document.
jg: not redoing the document. just pulling specific parts to make modules.
ij: not a short term project. needs more thought.
jg: want extension to uaag, that are smaller in scope, and specific to a
kl: would be easier to claim conformance to specific features (nav), rather
than all P1
jg: this would not replace UAAG, would be a way to highlight specific
feature that you conform to
ij: this is a format specific list we are looking at. we have avoided this.
if we choose to look at this, it would be under umbrella of uaag 1.0, then
have HTML instantiation of 1.0, that is reasonable thing to do. but to take
10 of the requirements to put a different label is a problem. yes there are
lots of requirements. if we fragment (tiny modules) we leave some people
jg: you would have to do UAAG. if you want to do more, here are some things
you can do...such at Navigation. to give credit for those who do more. must
have some conformance to UAAG before you can attempt modules. something for
the future and in response to needs of developer community.
jg: implementation report. hope to expand. need to include multimedia
player. have some draft versions, but not yet loaded on w3 servers. we have
new test suite management tools. have some repairs to make to html. students
are working on svg test suites.
ss: xhtml will be an improvement of html.
ss: small concern with conformance of user agents, window eyes. so screen
reader would take care of accessibility of the tool
jg: yes, the browser works with assistive technology, and can make
conformance claims. a primary tool to provide feed back is the test suites
to show strengths and weakness. Screen reader would make conformance claims
on speech output not the graphics view. can make claim to technology type.
ss: its not just accessibility for people with disabilities, but also other
types of hardware (pda, cell phones, etc)
jg: education & outreach characterizes accessibility in this manner. UAAG is
more technical.
ss: internationalization is also important. translation into other languages
jg: internationalization working group has reviewed our document. we made
changes to be language neutral.
ij: what is your specific interest in this working group
ss: what people use to access the web. different technologies. our company
works with education.
ij: so you are not focusing on building a user agent, as much as using a
user agent, how they work, how they integrate with use of the internet.
jg: those are important issues. alt for images but not for maps.
ss: not just follow the letter of the law, but is the result actually
accessible. examples color, capital letter, font change.
dp: JAWS will identify capitalization in open reading in latest version.
ss: how to pronounce UAAG, underlining
jg: test suites are good for testing.
dp: JAWS will also expand acronyms and abbreviations if content is there.
ss: easy to add to a page. great number of our company testers have
disabilities (vision, reading, cognitive). catching many things that are not
in the specifications. Opera may render things differently than IE and
jg: great to have you as part of the group.
ss: hope to find a place to fit in the group.
jg: next meeting next week.
mm: meet with Judy next week.
ij: will talk with Judy tomorrow.

Jim Allan, Webmaster & Statewide Technical Support Specialist
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"I see the Earth. It is so beautiful."--first words spoken by human in
[Yuri Alekseevich Gagarin, from the Vostok 1, April 12, 1961.]

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.470 / Virus Database: 268 - Release Date: 4/8/2003
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 15:15:25 UTC

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