W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

MINUTES: WAI UA Telecon 10 march 1999

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:30:22 -0600
Message-Id: <199903112025.OAA23418@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Complete telecon information can be found at:

Chair: Jon Gunderson 
Scribe: Ian Jacobs 
Denis Anson
Marja Koivunen 
Mark Novak 
Charles Opperman 
Scott Leubking 
Charles McCathieNevile 

Action Items and Resolutions

New Action Items
JG: Tell WG when DOM meeting will happen.
CMN: Post response to WG. 
MK: Draft techniques related to multimedia. 
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3. 
CMN: This is a general concern and is applicable for other checkpoints. 
CO: (with reservations from CO): Review checkpoints and list those where OS
conventions should be elicited. 
CO: Review 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for wording and priority. 
IJ: Eric Hansen review of WCGL intro. I will compare and take into account. 
Group: Review:

6.2.1 is Priority 1 (General sequential access). 

Status of Outstanding Action Items
0) 4.3.3 Keyboard elements that use access key. 
DA: How do UAs find access keys? 
JG: Need to expose access key info to ATs. The biggest problem is how key
combinations work. 
CO: IE4 and IE5 support accesskey. See microsoft.com/enable. 1) Review of
action items: SL: review section 1. Status: Done. Will resend to archives. 
ACTION IJ: Eric Hansen review of WCGL intro. I will compare and take into
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in
techniques document (10 Feb WD) Status: Done. 
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD) Status:
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week. Status: Done. 
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques
document. Status: Continued. 
IJ: Publish new group working draft Status: Done. 
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs. Status: unsure. 
CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it. Status:
CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list. Status: Done. 
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for
example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques). Status: Done. 
KB: Remassage documentation proposal from last week based on telecon and list
feedback (deadline 17 march) Status: Continued 
JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation. Status: Done
after conversation with Ian. Integrated into 9 March draft. 
JG: Update issues list Status: Dropped. 
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) Status: Done. 
MRK: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques. Status: Done. 
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. Status: Done
2) Review of changes in 9 March draft. a) 
Review of Changes in 9 March 1999 Working Draft
New checkpoint 6.2.1 
SL: Forces people with disabilities to have a better understanding of pages
than non-disabled people. As a user, I don't want to know about elements and
CO: I agree. Keyboard has to be scoped (hundreds of elements on the screen
at a
time). Pattern matching of text to reach active elements. /* Charles
McCathieNevile joins */ 
SL: Definition of active elements bothers me. 
IJ: I don't agree for links and form controls. 
SL: Long description is not a piece of interaction. 
IJ: But it's a link. Action 
SL: Propose a definition of active element. 
DA: Inefficient if you only have sequential.
SL: Something that allows people to be competitive should be priority 1. 
JG: We chose priority one because we needed to indicate what is critical. 
CO: Buttons and links starting to merge. Straw poll about 6.2.1 v. other
classes of navigation: DA, CO, IJ, CMN: Agree. 
SL: All should be priority 1. 
JG: We only need 6.2.1 
MK: Are different classes of sequential navigation? Must think about user
(CO: Hallelujah!).
CO: I don't like the term "form". There aren't really forms on the Web
(although the FORM element may be used). Let's focus on forms. 
IJ: Forms as scoping mechanism are important: knowing you've left one form for
CO: Point well taken, but minority case. 
RESOLOVED 6.2.1 is Priority 1 (General sequential access). 
SL: You're searching for functionality, not text. 
CO: That's a function of the user interface of the device they're using. UAs
could subtype based on type. ATs could add this functionality. No resolution
about priorities / existing of related checkpoints. b) Priority 4.1.2 changed
to Priority 1 No comments. c) Deleted 4.3.4 
DA: Question priority of 4.3.2. Need to find out what keyboard bindings are to
use them. CMN: I agree (and have done so in email). 
DA: Also think 4.3.3 priority 1 for the same reason. 
JG: Put to priority 2 since one could be assisted. 
IJ: That's not a valid reason. People need independent control. 
IJ: Notification of changes. 
DA: This is finding out what's changeable, not what's changed. 
JG: Do we want the person to be able to know these things independently. 
NOTE: Some people would like to raise priorities of 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 
DA: We're merging and separating checkpoints. In merging and until
interdependencies established, can't set priorities. 
CO: Disagree with term "binding". 
IJ: Distinguish pre-defined bindings and user-configured ones. 
CO: Proposed 4.3.2/ "Ensure that keyboard access is properly documented" (for
default and user-modified). 
CO: Don't expect software to "document" dynamic keystrokes. a) Configuration
process must be accessible (4.2.1). 
DA: Configuration mechanism should be accessible and be the way to find out
bindings that way. 
ACTION CO: Review 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for wording and priority. 
Checkpoints 4.4.13./4.4.14 
JG: Currently priority 3 both of them. 
No comments. 
NEW CHECKPOINTS: 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 
SL: How will they know which to choose? 
CO: Currently, with SAMI and Windows, we have OS flags that give clues to
interfaces that say "User needs captioning". I recommend (1) to follow OS
conventions (2) allow choice. 
Proposed: ACTION Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3. 
CMN: This is a general concern and is applicable for other checkpoints. 
ACTION CO (with reservations from CO): Review checkpoints and list those where
OS conventions should be elicited. 
/* DA leaves */ f) 5.5.5 Provide the user with access to any label explicitly
associated with a form control. [Pri 2] No comments. g) Review of checkpoint
subgrouping (Desktop UAs and dependent ATs). 
CMN: I have about four points of disagreement: a) 5.4.1 should apply to both.
(Basic technique: increase font size). 
CO: I don't understand that. Suppose user increases font size, how do they get
access to a single cell. 
CMN: Allow selection to be placed on a single cell. 
CO: I need to be able to navigate to and select table cells? 
CMN: That's my preferred solution. Another solution that is low-hanging fruit
(for IE4 in particular): include displaying borders as a standard style sheet
property and provide a mechanism to scroll down and across. 
CO: Positioning the viewport is obvious. 
CMN: Does that make it bad? 
CO: Drop the second part about "Make sure you can see it." 
IJ: Ability to select table and table cell also discussed in other email.
provide a solution. This is an issue to be discussed by the 
WG: is such a selection mechanism required/important/interesting? 
MN: There are some issues there in particular w.r.t. mobile phones. 
ACTION CMN: Post response to WG. 
ACTION Group: Review:
The WG approves this draft being made public after IG review and any WG
proposed changes. 
Additional action items: 
ACTION MK: Draft techniques related to multimedia. 
NEXT MEETING: 24 March There will be a DOM meeting on either 24 March or 31
March during the normal telcon time. 
ACTION JG: Tell WG when this will happen.

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
Received on Thursday, 11 March 1999 15:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:21 UTC