- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:30:33 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>X-Sender: jomiller@bendingline.com >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:33:48 -0700 >To: wendy@w3.org >From: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com> >Subject: minutes > >Some from before lunch, rest from this afternoon. > > >*** Topic for #wai: irc.w3.org:6665 channel is #wai >#wai :Jo mcmay oedipus TimLa KatieHS wendy chaals > mcmay: All the users that are trying to be good citizens need > somewhere to start. This has been the only global conversation to allow > that to happen. > mcmay: Focus on legislation is helpful, but smaller-level adoptions > are helpful as well. We don't want to isolate them. > mcmay: KHS Unicode support for ATIA. > mcmay: CMN to Greg: Issue of fixing content vs. fixing technologies. > mcmay: If a section is hard to do, should it be in the guidelines? My > answer is that the kind of document we can publish is a technical > recommendation. > mcmay: We should say this is what needs to be done to make things > accessible. >*** oeddie (~oedipus@ns.hicom.net) joined #wai > mcmay: Social decisions are outside our scope. > mcmay: GV Guidelines should include everything, no matter how hard it > is to do? > mcmay: CMN Yes. > mcmay: WC ref: http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/wcag20-requirements > oeddie: lost carrier, but irc still thinks that oedipus is here, so > i'm here as 'oeddie' > mcmay: GV This came as a set of agreed-upon principles. > mcmay: CM Our requirement is that we want our document to do > everything. Maybe we're biting off more than we can chew. >*** oedipus has signed off (EOF From client) > mcmay: ...we're going to dilute the power of the document. This is a > tug of war between regulatory groups and end-user authors. > mcmay: Bob: Agree. Put in the hard stuff, make it standard. Then > Macromedia, for example, can use it to press the standard. > chaals notes that my Mum does accessibility at the > university of Melbourne... > mcmay: JM It's not just poor grandma, but making meaningful art. > We're saying you have to hire someone to do everything necessary. > wendy: MM Needs to be something that will be easy to modify. > Jo: MM not everything needs to be normative or be in a single grand > document. It gets down to a level of fine, fluid detail, so some things > need to be in a document that can be easily modified. > wendy: MM must be fluid. > wendy: CMN Is there consensus that we should set out all (as many as > possible) the requirements for accessibility? > wendy: CMN We've discussed writing something that will be taken up by > legislation, or whether writing something, "this is what you'll do in a > perfect world." > wendy: ..legislation, not likely in a perfect world, therefore you'll > have to interpret it. > wendy: CS Very concerned about things that have found their way into > the guidelines, > wendy: like creating art, writing well...most of G3 > wendy: ..want to see something that is measurable and practical. > wendy: ..easier to translate into code. > wendy: CMN believe you'd have universal consensus on that. > wendy: CS Issues w/WCAG 1 that are difficult to do, many people > discount entier thing (based on one). > wendy: LGR Believe this is strongly related to conformance. Could > structure to make it reasonable. > wendy: ...also to address CS's issues. > wendy: CS A list of everything one could do, would be interesting, > but not appropriate for this. > wendy: GV We seem to consensus on what we're trying to achieve. > wendy: ..they should be usable in some way by people who write > regulations. > wendy: ..they should have a harmonizing effect on people writing > regulations. > wendy: ..different words, different countries, things done > differently, but the effect on companies > wendy: .. is similar. > wendy: ..i don't beleive we have consensus on whether we should put > everything in, including all the hard stuff, or jsut put > wendy: ..what is practical. > wendy: ..hard and practical, but not hard and inpractical. >*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer) >*** TimLa has signed off (Connection reset by peer) > wendy: ..we have a continuum. > wendy: ..things to require, but not sure how. >*** TimLa (~timlaranc@199.108.188.138) joined #wai > wendy: ..Another dimension - measurability. we know we can do it, > but don't have a ruler to measure. > wendy: ... people ought to write things simply if they can, but we > don't know how to do that. > wendy: RN 2 yrs ago, i was adam ant. > wendy: .. wanted to keep them simple. > wendy: .. now, my thoughts have changed. > wendy: .. put them out there, w/everything in there. > wendy: .. let the countries and companies incorporate what they want. > wendy: JM the sum up is accurate. > wendy: (she's talking as loud as she can....) > wendy: ..it's already in the draft requirements. > wendy: KHS propose, along with QA, shouldn't require anything we > can't show good techniques for. > oeddie: we have good techniques, they just aren't supported by the > extant technology > oeddie: what "mainstream" ua supports CSS2 in toto? these are the > problems - 508 is just a handy stick with which to beat people over the head > wendy: CMN we argue about philosphy way too much. > wendy: BR 508 effects what's going on at Macromedia. > oeddie: in order to get accessibility "out of the box" we first need > to get it into the box, via canonical specs > wendy: GV To get a hybrid, we ought to think about: > wendy: .. do kind of what we do in 1.0. Includes all the info about > what would make things accessible. > wendy: .. then hi-lite what is critical in a short list. > wendy: .. perhaps short list is (previously P1-3). was > impossible/hard/helps, but somethings put down a level other than pure > definition. > wendy: .. sometimes you can do it, sometimes you can't. > wendy: .. might have a doc that could be used by others to figure out > what is essential and also > wendy: .. provide full range of things to move towards. > wendy: .. as tech changes they won't disappear. > wendy: .. one reason govnt did not include cognitive in 508 was that > they did not feel there was any way to measure. > wendy: .. part of this could be handled by structure. > wendy: .. objective, and others to address , but no criteria for success. > oeddie: accessibility isn't quantitative - it is qualitative (quality > + ative) > wendy: .."do what you can..." > Jo: gv - Perhaps aim for a document that includes all the > information about what makes things accessible, and highlight things that > should be critical in anyone's shortlist. We aimed for this in 1.0 with > priority 1,2,3. if we could figure out how to do that, then we'd have a > document that can be used by others (regulators, etc.) and can also > provide the full range of things that we ought to be shooting for. So > that as technologies change, it's still on the table. So we don't have to > throw ou > Jo: gv - don't have to throw out the things that we don't have the > technology, techniques to address. >*** Welcome to the Internet Relay Network Jo!~Jo@199.108.188.138 >*** Your host is irc.w3.org, running version 2.10.2 >*** This server was created Thu Jul 8 1999 at 16:35:44 EDT >*** There are 37 users and 0 services on 2 servers >*** There are 1 operators online >*** There are 1 unknown connections >*** There are 30 channels formed >*** I have 4 clients, 0 services and 1 servers >*** Topic for #wai: irc.w3.org:6665 channel is #wai >#wai :Jo TimLa oedipus chaals >*** mcmay (~Matt@199.108.188.138) joined #wai > Jo: Microsoft Project Central Demo >*** AaronSw (~AaronSw@c930384-a.hlndpk1.il.home.com) joined #wai >*** TimLa has signed off () >*** TimLa (~timlaranc@199.108.188.138) joined #wai > Jo: GV why is the assignment database not part of the project store? > Jo: typically the manager wants to be in control over what's in > project store. Assignment area is temp database until things get approved > by mgr to go into project store. > Jo: Is Exchange required? > Jo: Not any more. Web-based. > Jo: (above question was from RN) > Jo: WC On screen shots, which are ActiveX controls? > Jo: (shows) The benefits of the ActiveX controls: much faster > performance. > Jo: WC What are you trying in moving from ActiveX to HTML/DHTML? > Jo: (inaudible)..trying to leverage other work being done within > microsoft. > Jo: CMN the activeX controls are standardized? >*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer) > Jo: There are 5 or 6, not from a library of standard controls. > Jo: CMN Are you using one standard Rich Text entry thing? > Jo: Mostly standard to other MS products. >*** TimLa has signed off (Ping timeout) >*** TimLa (~timlaranc@199.108.188.138) joined #wai >*** cyns (~cyns@199.108.188.138) joined #wai >*** mcmay (~Matt@199.108.188.138) joined #wai >--> *chaals* I can't hear a bloody thing over the fan, can you? > Jo: WC Any recommendations or thoughts on dealing with older browsers? > Jo: RN to WC we don't worry about IE 3. > Jo: MS Project still viewed as a niche product, it's hard to get AT > vendors to support it (as opposed to Office and other products with > larger user base). >*** mcmay has signed off (Connection reset by peer) > Jo: LGR Access keys? > Jo: LGR Using standard access keys? > Jo: Pretty similar. > Jo: GV trouble with collision with hotkeys in IE? > Jo: Yes. > Jo: Try to put access keys around the page rather than in one location. > Jo: Try to group the controls logically and provide access keys for > each section to make tabbing easier. > Jo: CMN notes problems with collision with access keys > Jo: GV Problem with visual representation of access keys. One thing > to think about is to expose access keys to screen readers. > Jo: GV With AT, maybe we have to say this assumes that you have a > reader that works with current technologies and that will display these > in standard way. > Jo: GV "We assume the AT has the following capabilities..." > Jo: TL Access Keys are also exposed in document object model. Up to > AT vendors to decide how they're going to display that. > Jo: WC What would you consider the applications? > Jo: Device independence. Not table layout. Working on that in future > versions. > Jo: WC ActiveX controls? > Jo: GV Nested headers? > Jo: No, not on single page. > Jo: WC Any other things to warn us about as we move forward? > Jo: Standard for access keys. repetitive navigation. ability to skip > long lists of links when tabbing. > Jo: CMN Browser manufacturers pushed back on access keys. > Jo: CMN smart browsers re-map access keys. > oedipus: smart browsers offer the user the option to pick a triggering > mechanism for accesskey > oedipus: they also allow users to chose between establishing focus on > the element or activating it, which needs to be a UA configuration option > Jo: GV Have you thought of having alt key combinations? > Jo: CMN Have you been looking at web authoring guidelines? > Jo: No, maybe good idea. > Jo: Note: very hard to hear back here...minutes incomplete and > possibly inaccurate. Sorry. > oedipus: jo, something is better than nothing > chaals: do you want us to dial you in? > Jo: Demo over. Back to Guidelines. > Jo: GV proposes we make a list defining what we agree on vs. what we > don't agree on. >*chaals* Nope > Jo: GV refers to e-mail message he wrote this morning, on consensus. > Jo: GV That our guidelines should be usable by people who are > writing regulations or requirements or policies. This is not the only > group, but one group we need to address. Seems to be consensus on that. > Jo: GV That our guidelines should not necessarily be directly usable > or adoptable as regs. > Jo: That our guidelines should not be limited to only that > information that could or should be required today. They should talk as > well about what would make web content more accessible even if it is not > possible today. >*** wendy (~wendy@tux.w3.org) joined #wai > >Jo Miller >___________________________ >B e n d i n g L i n e >7 0 3 - 7 8 3 - 0 6 9 5 >Strategic Web Consulting > >http://bendingline.com -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa /--
Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 18:14:26 UTC