MINUTES: W3C WAI UA Telecon 3 Feb 1999

Full meeting information is available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/03/wai-ua-telecon-19990303.html

Attendance
Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG)
Scribe: Ian Jacobs (IJ)
Denis Anson (DA)
Marja-Ritta Koivunen (MRK)
Kitch Barnicle (KB)
Harvey Bingham (HB)
Charles McCathieNevile (CMN)
Mark Novak (MN)
Scott Leubking (SL)

Completed Action Items

KB: Propose section in techniques document on accessible documentation
(Guidelines 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) 
DA: Draw up a proposal for a "table interface" for ATs in relation to the
discussion on checkpoint 5.4.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to navigate among
tables in a document. .
JG: Write proposal of what information needs to be exchanged.
JG: Propose subsets for remaining list of checkpoints to the list. 

Unfinished Action Items 

SL: review section 1. 
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: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week. 
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques
document.
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week. 
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs. 
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. 
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for
example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques).

New Action Items 

(All due by March 10th unless otherwise noted)
MN: Propose text on most important standard os interfaces to use and tests for
them. This will be used as the basis of text for the techniques related to
Checkpoint 7.2.3 (Feb 10 draft)
KB: Remassage documentation proposal from last week based on telecon and list
feedback (deadline 17 march) 
CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it. 
CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list. 
JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation. 
JG: Update issues list
IJ: Publish new group working draft
MRK: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques.

Minutes

Document under review: [1.b]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/

http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-AUTOOLS-19990301 1) Review of action items 

CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs. Status: Continued. 
IJ: Status of all: continued. a) Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the
text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD) b) Checkpoint
5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD) c) Add/delete indicated
checkpoints from last week. d) Make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other
APIs in the techniques document. Deadline: Two weeks. 

KB: Propose section in techniques document on accessible documentation
(Guidelines 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) Status: Done. [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0256.html 

DA: Draw up a proposal for a "table interface" for ATs in relation to the
discussion on checkpoint 5.4.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to navigate among
tables in a document. Status: Done. (Did 5.4 generically) [3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0257.html 

DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for
example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques). Status: Continued. 

HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. Status: No
progress. (Though Denis seems to have covered in part). 

SL: review section 1. Status: No progress 

JG: Write proposal of what information needs to be exchanged. Status: Done [4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0261.html 

JG: Propose subsets for remaining list of checkpoints to the list. Status:
Done
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html 2)
Kitch's proposal [2]. KB: What does documentation encompass? Manuals? Help?
Both? 

CMN: In Authoring Tools WG, means both. Whatever's written about the tool.
Online or off is not the distinctive feature. 

HB: The online help system deserves our focus. 

HB: Is there an implication that the original document owner is responsible
for
the alternative formats. 

CMN: We need to address the issue of what an open standard format is. Why XML
and not PDF? What's the definition of open standard? 

DA: Can we say "accessible electronic format"? 

KB: There's the format of the file, then the accessibility of the document.
What about the Windows help system? 

CMN: How about the documentation must satisfy the WCGL? PDF is not ipso facto
inaccessible. 

HB: Is it adequate to send PDF to the Adobe server? 

CMN: Separate but equal doesn't work. Resolved: Change wording in 4.1.2 to
refer to 
WCGL. (Leave examples of HTML). "Ensure that all product documentation
(installation documentation, help, manuals, etc.) conforms to the WCGL." -
Suggested formats include HTML and XML. In Techniques: Make sure to mention
installation. 

Action KB: Remassage proposal (deadline 17 march) 

JG: Several people have commented that 4.1.2 should be priority 1. 

/* Jon mentions reasons elicited at MIT meetin */ 

KB: Not fair to choose this one checkpoint as the "scapegoat" to "get through"
other priority 1 checkpoints. If the help system follows the other
checkpoints,
then I might be able to agree that a manual not be priority 1. Shouldn't
choose
a priority level with respect to other checkpoints. It's about accessibility.
Also, there is a lot of built-in configurability, and documentation is
crucial.


DA: Without documentation, impossible or difficult? 
CMN: Impossible, in my opinion. 

IJ: For many products, documentation or a person next to a new user is the
only
way to understand. 

KB: I interviewed some of my colleagues. One said "We don't need extra stuff,
but if the system is accessible, we have equivalent access." 

MN: We work with kids from preschool to senior citizens who are not computer
literate. They won't be able to or start to use tools without the
documentation. 

CMN: Accessible bad documentation makes those users mutually excluded.
Resolved: 4.1.2 to Priority 1. 

DA: At MS, their corporate policy is not to consider people with disabilities
as a separate population. Ultimately, people felt this was a good policy, but
the consensus on the advisory council felt that some of the tested population
should have disabilities to recognize the issue. 

JG: Need to discuss testing in techniques. 2) Denis' keyboard proposal (not
yet
completed). 

DA: Note: Keyboard input doesn't imply keyboard hardware. You may be using a
keyboard emulator. Need a checkpoint to use standard system interfaces. 

CMN: Covered by 7.2.3. List in techniques. 

DA: My sense from MS meeting was that incompatibility issues around getting
keyboard information is not resolved. 

MA: This feels like it should be dealt with in the techniques. Tell developers
not to go around the standard os mechanisms. 
Proposed by DA: Test with "Serial keys". 

MA: The work we did with Java OS was to 1) expose 2) allow manipulation.
Developers would have to go to great pains to work around them. In the future,
shouldn't pose the same problem. Resolved: Note that priority of 7.2.3
would go
up to Priority 1 since it concerns keyboard access. (Caveat: 7.2.3 might be
subsumed in a later draft). 

Action MN: Propose text on most important standard os interfaces to use and
tests for them. 
3) Issues from Cathy [3] [3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0252.html 

DA: See my table proposal, which downgrades one checkpoint from pri 1 to
pri 2.
/* Discussion of "block" */ 

Action CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it. 

IJ: Please note that you shouldn't rely on presentation and you probably can't
get that info from the DTD. You might define "block" for HTML 4.0 based on,
for
example, the CSS 2 default style sheet for HTML 4.0. MRK: Can Xpointer be used
for that? 
/* Take off-line with CMN */ 

Action Marja: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques. Deadline: 10
March -- Re: sequential navigation. Should sequential navigation be separated
by type, or just a general one (for all active elements). 

KB: If other ways of navigation are possible, not a problem to have "extra
things" in a long sequence. But if there's only one mechanism, having a lot of
different types of elements in the loop make it very ineffective. 

JG: I think general "active elements" more important. Configurability of the
sequence a second level of control. Describe implementation in the techniques
document. 

Action JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation. 

Action CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list. 
Next meeting : 
10 March Regrets HB Following meeting: 24 March 
NOTE: Meetings from now on will be 90 minutes.


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