- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:35:31 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
For complete telecon information see: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/02/wai-ua-telecon-19990217.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Attendance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG) Scribe: Ian Jacobs (IJ) Charles McCathie-Neville (CMN) Jim Allan (JA) Scott Luebking (SL) Harvey Bingham (HB) Kitch Barnicle (KB) Has Riesebos (HR) Joined at 12:50 EST \ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Action Items and Resolutions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 1. New Checkpoints In section 5.2 (10 Feb WD): Description: Allow the user to choose from among available text descriptions of audio or video Priority: 1 Checklists: Both In section 5.5 (10 Feb WD): Description: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a control, provide the user with access to the associated label. Priority: 2 Checklist: Both 2. Deleted Checkpoints Checkpoint: 4.3.4 (10 Feb WD) Description: Display keyboard bindings in menus. Priority: 3 Checklist: N/A 3. Sub groups for conformance The group was only able to get through section 4.3 of the 10 Feb WD and will continue next week with the grouping Following should be in both checklist 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.1 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4. Action Items IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD) IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD) IJ: Checkpoint 4.2.2: Remove word interactive (10 Feb WD) IJ: Ian will explore HTML 4.0 sepcification related control labels by 24 Feb KB: Review Section 4 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) JA: Review Section 5 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) HB: Review Section 5.4 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) CMN: Review Section 6 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) HR: Review sections 2 and 3 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) SL: Review section 1 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Minutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- SL: Is this an issue: Access content developers don't want to use document object models. They don't want to deal with a different object model for every piece of software. Implication: more to be done natively. See Denis' comments [2]. [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0195.html HB: Document object modelS (plural) was part of the concern. IJ: a) There will be need for communication b) I will have a proposal soon for the group addressing this. JG: We need also to ensure that the details of "what needs to be exchanged" is addressed by this group. Neither DOM nor existing platform-dependent APIs may address real needs. 1) Comments on 10 Feb draft [3] [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/ See Kitch's comments [4] [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0203.html 2. Section 5.2.3 [Priority 3] When null alternative text has been defined, suppress the rendering of the alternative representation. I am not sure what this checkpoint means. JG: This stems from a Page Author checkpoint (e.g., in the case of multiple images when only the first has alt text.) Action editors: Clarify this meaning notably in the techniques document. 3. Section 5.2.4 [Priority 1] Allow the user to choose from among available audio tracks. KB: If this is true, do we need the same for video? IJ: Audio track meant to accompany video. This should be clarified. Action editors: Clarify in document. KB: Then we don't need it. HB: We may need it for text captions (e.g., different languages). Proposed: If a technology allows for more than one [captioning or description] track (for audio or video), the user should be allowed to choose from among tracks. Resolved: Add one checkpoint to the document describing this. KB: Prose related to keyboard access. Proposed: change "close together" to "physically close together". KB: In 5.5.3, does this include the label? 5.5.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to search for a form control based on its text content. IJ: a) For those controls with text content (e.g., TEXTAREA) b) For labels? JG: More valuable to search for information based on label. CMN: This may refer to Web Content guidelines: put text in every form control that allows it (i.e., use default text). Proposed checkpoint: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a control, provide the user with access to the associated label. Resolved: Yes. Priority 2. Action: Editors will add this. Proposed checkpoint: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a label, allow the user to move focus to the associated control. Resolved: No. Action Ian: Find out what HTML 4.0 says about this. I think the spec says put the focus on the control element. /* Jim joins */ SL:: Concerned about jumping from form to form when you're searching for controls. Proposed checkpoint (HB): Allow the user to identify a form. Technique: Number? Name? SL: People will assume there's only one form on a page. If they search and end up in a different form, they need feedback that they've changed forms. /* No resolution to 2) Review of the spec. /* Review of working draft sections */ Deadline for comments 24 Feb teleconference Section 5: Jime Allan: Section 4: Kitch Barnicle Section 5.4: Harvey Bingham Section 6: Charles McN. Sections 2 and 3: Hans Riesebos Section 1: Introduction: Scott Leubking JRG: Review the sections for adding, deleting, changing checkpoints; changes in priorities SL: Keep in mind definition of accessibility and whether UAs can be competitive in addressing it. Techniques document: IJ: Recommended: If you think of techniques as you go, please tell the editors. IJ: Restated process for agenda: Please send proposals to the agenda following the Chair's email. This gives the Chair the opportunity to reserve time for proposals. SL: Can we address the participation of Netscape in this process? JG: It's important to get them involved. /* Sublists for checkpoints */ Options: Desktop graphical user agents and dependent user agents (Review of this document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/ ) Options: UA/AT/Both Section 4.1 4.1.1: Both SL: Should we say "device-independent" or redundance. JG: Let's not address that here. Editorial issue. 4.1.2: Both 4.1.3: Both JG: Maybe just for UAs CMN: Should be both, since low-hanging fruit. HB: Also, good to have it in place for people assisting users. SL: I've seen users get lost during installation. Provide status information? KB: This is a general user interface issue. JG: This is not on our agenda. 4.1.4: Both 4.1.5: Both Section 4.2 4.2.1: Both HR: Is 4.1.1 redundant with this? IJ: Yes, but may be important enough to stand alone. 4.2.2: Both HR: Why "Interactive"? IJ: Printer, for example. HR: E.g., a braille display that reacts on keyboard input. The device is not interactive. Propose: Remove "interactive". Action editors: Remove it. 4.2.3: Both 4.2.4: Both 4.2.5: Both JG: Combine these three? IJ: We broke them out intentionally. CMN: Combine, define "active elements". Issue: What priority for 4.2.5? 4.3.1: Both JG: I lean towards UA in this case. CMN: Why not ATs as well? HR: I'm not sure. When you have accessible AT technology, they normally know the group of people they're working to help. JG: What about people with several disabilities. Consider Jaws, for example. "Insert" key on numeric pad used as a modifier key. If someone were both blind and could only type with one finger, they couldn't use Jaws (Inset + F7). IJ (to HR): ATs may be used by larger audience. HR: Lower the priority for ATs? JG: We want to avoid if possible. We could consider for Pri 1 items. 4.3.2: Both 4.3.3: Both JG: Screen readers already deal with conflicts with between programs. 4.3.4: Both JG: Some ATs don't have menus. CMN: Propose making this a technique for 4.3.4 Resolved: Delete 4.3.4. Make it a technique for 4.3.3. Proposed: Do this again in the next teleconference. Adjourned 1:30 EST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Copyright © 1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements. 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 Thursday, 18 February 1999 14:37:38 UTC