- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:40:19 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance Ian Jacobs Kathy Hewitt Daniel Dardailler Jon Gunderson (chair) Charles McCathieNeville Wilson Craig Earl Harrison Jim Allan Scott Leubking Action Items and Conclusions Scott Leubking 1. Will contact berkley disability group on reviewing the guidelines 2. Will try to contact deaf-blind group in seattle on reviewing the guidelines Jon Gunderson 1. Send out announcement on possible face to face meeting in december 2. Send out announcement on determining which items are required for direct implmentation in any UA 3. Coordinate the submission of content to techniques document Discussion issues for the list 1. Defining a model to talk about 3rd pary assistive technology and user agent technology 2. Developing a consensus on determining direct implementation language and markup for each technique 3. Review guidelines and techniques for missing or incomplete information 4. Recruiting reviewers from a wide range of disability persepctive Minutes DD: I have looked at priorities Direct vs. 3rd party assistive technology is an important issue JG: What do you think about format? DD: They are detailed, covers alot of issues and not exactly what I had invisioned but they are usable Abstract guidelines do not carry priorities, talked to Ian IJ: Guidelines are not a checklist item, they have techniques related to them that people can check off JA: Some guidelines still have priorities IJ: Guidelines can be still be priorities since some guidelines may be more important than othter guidelines DD: 4.1 has one and other guidelines do not IJ: We need to establish priorities of other guidelines DD: are we going to remove other priorities for guidelines IJ: We could, or we could just know that priorities are different between guidelines and techniques The main question is knowing what is the threshold for complying to a guideline How many prioroty one techniques do you need to satisfied for satisfying a guideline KH: Well I like the way it is structured, can take to developers and they can use them Techniques are fully listed out IJ: One attempt in the current editing pass is to limit the number og guidelines, there are currently 20 guidelines and techniques are grouped under the guidelines Does the document make the accessibility information visionary The techniques document tries to serve both a users perspective and developers view KH: What about duplications, I noticed in one of the techniques document that there was a 4.2 techniques for other types of documents IJ: Let me look at the same place, what section KH: Looking at section 4.2.13 and 6.2 IJ: 4.2.13 is in larger context than just NOSCRIPT and 6.2 says to implement NOSCRIPT IJ: One is slightly more abstract and the other concrete JG: This talks about a general implementation issue and the other is specific CM: Dependent vs. dependent user agents not clear Like a plug is that a dependent or independent user agent DD: Do plugins have total control over rendering One reference to dependent uiser agents JG: 3 groups of browsers types .... KH: What about Home Page reader DD: it is not a dependent user agent, it is not dependent /* Jon talked about the issues related to diect and 3rd party asssitive technology */ DD: Do we have a definition for dependent and independent user agent IJ: Not really CM: Is real audio user agent a dependent user agent Do we need to have the discussion I don't see how the definition helps DD: I think we do, especially for other technologies like XML We need to underwstand what these terms means Then we can decide about whether they should be applied to the guidelines pwWebSpeak relies on MSHTML control for parsing JG: That sounds like a technology issue DD: New generation of web tools for building applications Issue of user agent that are mainstream and that are not specialized, they will be used by third part assistive technology Those two are different axis What about table linearization and that we split it into a tree view. Remove table markup SL: Table linearization is simpler DD: Linearization should SL: Whether the user agent talks KH: Why is table linearization then a requirement SL: The reason to put table linearization in mainstream browser. I am looking at the benefits for the amount of time. It is very straight forward. KH: What is the benefit to the mainstream user. I am not looking at the level of effort. SL: I do believe in the cost benefit analysis, by having it in a central location. People can change assitive technology and without needing learn to learn new techniques. Speech is more complex and the cost is high. KH: Yes, I don't agree with table linearization. SL: Table linearization is saving man hours for assistive technology vendors KH: I have the same issue related to mainstream browser to try to simplify the mainstream browser for the general user population. As you ask me to add more features, the browser becomes more complex. DD: Some screen readers will not use DOM they will just use screen rendering. So if third party assistive is not very smart, it will not be able to provide good information. SL: The MSAA is not always good. Since IE will be developed for mac or UNIX environment and will not have MSAA. DD: How do you feel about this issue? KH: You can extend this model to wordprocessing, is this a wish list. If I don't have this is the browser is the browser inaccessible? This ahould be the question for priority 1 items We provide support through accessibility APIs and this is where we are putting our effort SL: Is this really providing access? Are they providing very good access? DD: What is the extend of the problem. If it is a small set of problems, then it is not important. SL: I think we need to look at 3rd party assistive technology will need to look at a range of products. We need to look at the context. I don't see it as a viable approach. KH: That's why MSAA is supported in IE and MS Office. DD: MSAA is every where and additional support within for accessibility. Does a user agent need to support table linearization if 3rd party will be doing it? JG: Do we want to... SL: Some people have specialized needs. In addition there are large groups of people that benefit from certain techniques. WC: One thing that developers need to know about control KH: This is the issue of the face-to-face. There is a big gaping hole, if you go through our document object model. We need to spell out what should be done directly. Otherwise there will be holes in the implementation of the guidelines. SL: Most companies will do the absolute minimum. JG: I think we will need another face-to-face meeting. Who can come? SL: Resource issue DD: Dates are open Who would some from the current call: KH, IJ, DD, JG, Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: 217-244-5870 Fax: 217-333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 14:42:42 UTC