MINUTES and ACTION ITEMS: 17 Feb UA Telecon

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