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

[Minutes] 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf (review of XHTML 2.0 comments)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 15 May 2003 15:51:27 -0400
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-Id: <1053028286.1799.47.camel@seabright>

Hello UAWG,

Minutes of the 15 May 2003 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/15-ua-summary.html

=================================================

                     Minutes of 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf

   [1]Agenda:
    1. Action item review
    2. Next ftf meeting
    3. Review of XHTML 2.0 comments

      [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2003AprJun/0015.html

   Previous meeting: [2]1 May 2003
   Next meeting: 29 May

      [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/wai-ua-telecon-20030501.html

   Roll call: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Cathy Laws, Sean Stapleford, Colin
   Koteles, David Poehlman, Matt May, Ian Jacobs (Scribe)

Action items

   [Ian]
          Completed:
          JG send draft charter to JB
          IJ send XHTML 2.0 commetns
          Not completed:
          1. JG: Update issues TS list for removing blink and marquee
          tests
          2. JG: Repair test suites for frames
          3. JG: Contact GW Micro about review
          4. JG: Add author stylesheet to individual evaluations
          5. MM: Working on evaluation of Apple Safari browser
          6. MM: Check into updating evaluation for to included
          downloaded forms
          7. DP: To contact Freedom Scientific about conformance claims
          8. JA and CL: Create implementation report for IBM Home Page
          reader using HTML 4.01 test suites
          CL: No progress on HPR. I'll just fill it out.
          JG: Regrets from Harvey for today.
          [Some admin points on paperwork for Colin work on test suites]
          JG: We should go over draft charter when WAI Team gets back.
          JG: Can Colin get direct access to the CVS system.
          [Discussion of account for Colin.]
          IJ: JG, I suggest that you send a request to sysreq and cc'
          Judy, explaining why the account is necessary.
          JG: We have a Konqueror review up.
          IJ: They all need review since I was pointing to wrong list of
          checkpoints in evaluator. :(
          Action IJ: Report diffs between old checkpoints and new
          checkpoints (checkpoints.xml and checkpoints-20031217.xml)

Next ftf meeting

   [Ian]
          JG: Sun? Apple?
          MM: For when?
          JG: September 2002?
          JG: Late september / early October 2002 on the West Coast?
          Likely to attend: CL, JG, IJ, MM, CK, DP
          Unlikely: Sean
          Need to agree to date 8 weeks in advance (i.e., by July)
          Action JG: Ping Judy about organizing ftf meeting on West Coast
          (e.g., Apple)

Review of comments on XHTML 2.0

   Refer to [3]IJ summary of comments on 6 May 2003 XHTML 2.0

      [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/xhtml2-comments.html

   [JRG]
          IJ: Sent update about 90 minutes ago
          IJ: Frames discussions as starting points for discussion
          IJ: We should prune things, since HTML working group is over
          whelmed

   [Ian]
          How these comments are organized
          1. Comments related to user agent conformance
          2. Comments related to accessibility themes
          3. Miscellaneous comments
          4. New elements?

   [JRG]
          IJ: Reviewed example in comments related to ordered and
          unordered lists
          IJ: Defined difference between processing and rendering content

   [Ian]
          IJ: HTML WG has an opportunity to clear up spec (and not just
          import html 4.0 text) and promote interoperability; good for
          authors.

   [JRG]
          JG: Is there pressure from other groups
          IJ: QA
          JG: Are there other memeber companies pushing for this?
          IJ: We will be dicussing general QA issues with the AC
          IJ: They should have inline or at least references to
          UAAG/WCAG/XAG
          IJ: Currently no references to WAI documents
          MM: I have a page worth of comments
          IJ: Please insert them into the draft
          IJ: Can you merge them?
          MM: Yes
          *** Accessibility themes
          IJ: Rendering should reference stylesheets
          IJ: They have alot of rendering information in the
          specification
          IJ: Table of contents should be about representation of
          information, not rendering
          IJ: Styling through default, author and user stylesheets
          IJ: We can add items here related to UAAG 1.0
          We say that users should be able to provide a simplified view

   [Ian]
          JG: Opera has an outline view.

   [JRG]
          IJ: Oultine views can be generated by Amaya, Mozillia
          IJ: They claim they are just about markup, not behavior
          IJ: Styling conditional content is important, alonng with
          controling styling
          IJ: Definition of content
          IJ: Our defintion is what is in the DOM
          IJ: Other WAI groups have other definition
          IJ: We want them to define content
          IJ: Conditional content
          IJ: There is less conditional content in XHTML 2.0
          IJ: ALT and LONGDESC have been removed
          IJ: The new model is using SRC on any element and the element
          content becomes the conditional content
          IJ: Important content
          IJ: Letting authors say this thing is important
          IJ: There are useful things
          IJ: important things can be styled to stand out
          IJ: Rather than relying on markup, use an attribute to indicate
          importance
          IJ: Some user may want to hide less important content and let
          the important content remain
          CL: Would it be an element or attribute
          JG: I think attribute is more flexible
          CL: Important would still be generic
          IJ: I think so
          CL: You could use it to skip navigation bars, indciate key
          words
          IJ: This is pretty vague, in order for authors and developers
          to use IMPORTANT there needs to be better definitions
          CL: We need to define important
          CL: Exapnsion
          IJ: For abbreviations
          IJ: I will update commments
          IJ: One interesting side effect of getting rid of ALT and
          LONGDESC is that there is no way to differentiation between the
          two
          IJ: It maybe useful to users to have both short and longer
          descriptions
          JG: Is TITLE still there
          IJ: yes
          IJ: There is a role attribute
          CL: One problem with not having LONGDESC is that you would not
          know what the conditional content is
          IJ: OBJECT will replace IMG, and you can embed OBJECTS to give
          the user more options
          IJ: Probably most authors will not do this
          IJ: All long descriptions are out of band
          IJ: There are times when you do not want to download and
          separating resources is useful
          IJ: Will put in a description
          IJ: Problem for visual and auditory user agents is how do you
          show options for rendering of an OBJECT
          DP: We are talking about descriptions, I don't hear about
          replacement
          DP: I need what the image is conveying if I cannot see it
          DP: I don't see the discussion
          DP: This is a third peice
          JG: This is a WCAG issue
          DP: When ALT is taking away ALT and LONGDESC, but the third
          issue is what the image represents
          CL: Ordering issues?
          IJ: There are processing instructions
          CL: The problem is that the element can have both content and a
          TITLE attribute
          IJ: Maybe what we need, I suspect that they are independent of
          each other
          IJ: We need more specific rendering information for title
          IJ: This about conditional content rendering when there are
          more than one piece of conditional content is available
          IJ: By default no conditional content is rendered
          IJ: The the next step is user configuration of what should be
          rendered to the user
          CL: Some people what to render ALT instead of TITLE or TITLE
          instead of ALT
          CL: XHML 2.0 problem is now TITLE versus content
          IJ: Just leave this as a question in the current comments
          IJ: They want to include a REL redirect
          IJ: We do not want the feature, although some authors like it
          *** Navigation
          IJ: We need a better defintion of focus
          IJ: Other groups have other different defs of focus
          IJ: We can use this to clear up other defintions, for example
          activating a link
          CL: First element after a navigation bar or first active
          element?
          IJ: If navigation is defined as focus, then only active
          elements
          CL: Not always defined as active element
          CL: First element is not always active element
          JG: Point of regaurd
          DP: If you have an anchor, it will move to any element you tell
          it to

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 15:51:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:14 GMT