- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:44:39 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance Chair: JG-Jon Gunderson Scribe: JA-Jim Allan HB-Harvey Bingam CMN-Charles MacCathieNevile MN-Mark Novack Regrets Ian Jacobs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Completed Action Items MN: Will post message about ua implementation JG and DA: Denis Anson about contributing on navigation commands Continued Action Items RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information). IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have requirements on UAs. IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching. Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3. CMN: 7.2.2, 7.2.6 write techniques JG: Techniques for 7.2.2 comment on MN previous work on this checkpoint JG : write checkpoint 7.2.1 techiques JG: contact rob (ms) about 724,5,6; contact rich s (ibm) and peter korn (sun) to get techniques also for checkpoint 7.2.4,5,6 JA: look at nav stuff and propose checkpoints and techniques, by Monday (maybe) techniques what attributes are important to search for group to review and assign more tasks at next meeting. New Action Items CMN: Will write techniques section for the checkpoint on navigating the document tree, will include eamples of speech rendering of the walking structures (Due 5/3) JG: rewrite navigation proposal , add walking the tree, based on todays discussion (Due 4/30) Resolutions Won't address XFO isseu (#39 in the issues list) at the moment, will wait until other working groups have tme to process. Include a checkpoint on navigating the tree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Minutes JG: Review Action Items CMN waiting for other input JA bogged down still working MN posted info to list last week Dennis Anson posted nav information how nav concepts are addressed by check points JG also posted a proposal- checkpoints and techniques review both to come to closure Dennis proposal discussion 3 types of pages - gateway, query, content JG need to add interactive pages HB: thats buried in query pages JG: 2 types of users familiar with page and unfamiliar related checkpoints to types of pages HB: likes concepts presented JG: my proposal concerns checkpoints and techniques and reach resolution listed checkpoints, subgroups, priorityhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0066.html JA: nested lists, bullet indication jg: chuncking, moving to new list need something that says view attribute of list item cmn: sounds like search for thing that is the same jg: when you enter a list item or sublist item orient to list-how many items in list, relation to other list, cmn: walk the document tree JG: document tree is not alway walkable, if you add image then the image becomes a node cmn: example at hand, moving down list, children are 10 list item, first 5 are list item, 6 and seven are also lists, allows us to do wha we want JG: Opperman objectd CMN: opperman was wrong JG: what about inline elements that fragment words cmn: then read the text, do both things, traverse active elements hb: mixture of pcdata with embedded other inlines, pcdata is sibling in the dom para with some words bold, bold is a sibling, CMN: content follows text logically, node to siblings, text---bold node---text etc cmn: node 47 children, what type of node it is, then tell me more, configure how it tells you information JG: ACTION: cmn to write checkpoint for node navigation description with speech output, how are inline elements handled write a proposed checkpoint walking the tree with techniques HB: tree is only one implementation of dom, don't presume tree, other views may be easier to implement jg: must view how user sees and interacts with infromation cmn: how does user see a page, if not a tree then what JG: view it as linear, no concept of nodes, siblings, etc, could be very complex, must work in all situations, if i must navigate 3 format table to get text it gets confusing. HB: look at dennis's materials, sequentially nav headers JG: sequential nav of headers should be checkpoint HB: distinguish page type by nav type JG: 3 types of techniques sequential search text sublist of elements - text content and attrib values HB: what about prior previous JG: part of cmn action MN: keep tree metaphor, user understanding not important, sequential next similar item - what user wants, immaterial the technical aspect, just do it. JG: techniques - use algorithm to implement checkpoints MN: yes-lists with sublist, headers with subheaders, can do them, walking some kind of tree, but user doesn't care, just wants to do a task. MN: this is a good start, based on other browsers, must evolve, get global stuff and review, JG: must have this done by next week, or we go to recommendation in december instead of fall, look at stuff now, to move to recommendation. CMN: we are close to checkpoint list, need some work, main comment- doesnt say navigate the tree, propose checkpoint, priorities are a little off JG: what about proposed list, ok then add doc tree CMN: drop prioity, then doc tree provides most features, need list, fix prioities, add check point for tree, and tree may replace items on the list HB: walking dom provides access to hierarchy and attribute value. JA: /* comment */ JG: how do checkpoints reflect functional navigation, go to next parent, child, what do people think? HB: like concept of walking tree, but breaks in tables, JG: covered in table HB: tree walking JG: want several checkpoints related to waling functions or one checkpoint that says walk the tree? CMN: one check point - naviagate whole document tree allow specific types of navigation. Checkpoint that states moving from active element to active element is not walking the document tree JG: Is not moving from active element to active element just a searching function of the dcoument tree CMN: This funtion does not need the document tree to be implemented, the function could search a linear object of elements and get the same results JG: need check points that specify specific navigation commands? CMN: nav whole document, then need convient/specific access MN: need general then specific implementations JG: Do we need a checkpoint that says view this node CMN: no JG: functional checkpoints are necessary, there is a fundamental level of navigation commands for dom nav JG: what is check point to allow user to nav doc tree CMN: tree is only one represenation, possible to show doc as linear object, goes down wire a serial object, navigate the document navigate the doc tree because of dom JG: Navigating the document tree is a big check point, don't we need little checkpoints related to: nav to next child, next sibling view all elements on node CMN: don't need alot of checkpoints, just one, need to walk around tree JG: need more specifics, foward and backward CMN: just one checkpoint mn: major heading CMN: guildine say navigate document tree, guideline should say nav the document. Checkpoint nav the tree. Elaborate on navigation of the document tree in techniques MN: convient checkpoint cmn: nav doc sequentially first nav doc as tree then move element to element, serial nav mn: convience function CMN: then nav list of links. JA: yes, agree with cmn and mn, we all want the same thing, words are getting in the way. CMN: add one checkpoint action item RESOLVED: check point to nav docu tree JG: Then searching is not tree navigation, HB: seperate content from attribute JG: may be other representation other than tree, what does lynx use cmn: serial document ** ACTION: JG rewrite proposal , add walking the tree, based on todays discussion JG: people need to think about it, if you are walking tree in speech, what to tell people at each node, need to convey to developer, JG: Need to get navigation finished by next week tohave any hopw of moving to recommendation in the fall, imperative, please try to think about this issue this week so we can come to resolution next week ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- JG: new issue from IG, may be outside charter, authors tools, CMN: XFO flow object description, structure stripped, JG: outside our scope, only authoring tools CMN: potential issue, read ?? ways of dealing with it, useragent not accept XFO jg: how will ua know cmn: xfo formating of xml, for xml ua, new tags JG: is there any thing we should implement CMN: ua should implement styling -xsl not xfo JG: xsl still in development cmn: let xsl group deal with it, maybe invite Hol?? to the group in norway jg: cmn please write and ask Hol? to join JG: If we have some statement about XFO-the only thing that ua could do would be implementation of xml markup CMN: dont know how the issuue be handled JG: RESOLUTON won't address XFO at the moment, will wait until other working groups have tme to process. 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, 28 April 1999 16:47:13 UTC