- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:50:50 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- CC: jbrewer@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference Chair/Scribe: Ian Jacobs Present: Harvey Bingham Jim Allan Glen Gordon Rich Schwerdtfeger Judy Brewer (for charter discussion) Next meeting: 21 July REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS: CMN: Copy request send to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list. IJ: Send similar request to IG. Status: Not done. IJ: Micropayments issue: Status: Discussion launched with Micropayments WG. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0258.html Action Jon: Take to CG and see what PF's role will be. SUMMARY OF NEW ACTION ITEMS: Ian: Send proposal to list to propose 9 July Draft (with today's changes) to IG. Ian: Add checkpoint about default keyboard configs not interfering with system conventions. (See details below). Harvey: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. Ian: Propose rationale text for guideline 1 explaining relationship between input mechanisms and system conventions. Ian: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on "through other software". Ian: Ensure that discussion of face-to-face on next agena Judy: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with deadline for comments by email or in next Weds' teleconf. After that, take to w3c management. AGENDA [1], [2] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0013.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0017.html Agenda 1) Review of changes in 12 July Draft of UAGL http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990709/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990709/changes Jim/Harvey/Glen read changes list. Agenda 2) Proposed: Send WD to IG. No objections. Action: Send proposal to list. Agenda 3) Review of keyboard proposal from Rich [1]: "Avoid default configurations that interfere with system conventions." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0240.html Resolved: Add proposed checkpoint as Priority 2. Include an example (ctrl-alt-delete) after checkpoint Action editor: - Add this checkpoint - Add info to Techniques: (For Windows) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0000.html - Add fromhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0240.html a) Navigation order b) Tabbing information is for for Java. c) Tab groupings HB: This suggests that we need to link to where special key definitions are defined. RS: OS-specific keyboard events are generally intercepted by the OS, not rerouted to applications. HB: But one OS's system command is another's application command. RS: This is all very OS-specific. More complicated on X where you have your own window manager. GG: MS has lists of "access keys" and "system keys". Action Harvey: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. Agenda 4) Proposed Note for checkpoint 1.1 on device-independent input. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0011.html HB: Do any OS do this? RS: Not that I'm aware of. GG: Windows 2000 is apparently shipping an on-screen keyboard. RS: This would be the first OS I know of that does this. JA: Some applications do this (HotMetal), but this is the exception, not the rule. IJ: Does the on-screen keyboard solve problems? RS: Helpful for mobility-impaired. For serial keys, you wouldn't be required to have an on-screen keyboard. IJ: Should dependent UAs be required to do this? RS: I think it would depend on the AT's purpose. IJ: For me, a conformance issue - do you fail 1.1 if you don't allow text input through the mouse? RS: Do you make the UA provide this or the OS? GG: The UA doesn't have to do this, but must be compatible with third-party software that does this. General consensus that UA shouldn't be required to provide on-screen keyboard. RS: On-screen keyboards are important for some groups of users. Need to float on the screen without interfering with applications. Should be provided by the OS (in the future). GG: Why is this different from saying a mainstream browser should be a screen reader? RS: Right. GG: Don't need to say that every browser should be self-voicing, for example. RS: DOM is hard-coded for mouse/keyboard input. No abstractions for other input devices. In PF WG, we're working on expanding this. Proposed: User agents must be able to respond to any type of input generated for a standard device (e.g., mouse, keyboard) by the operating system or another user agent. Input device independence means "any standard input mechanism supported by the operating system". IJ: What's the list of the input mechanisms? GG: Mouse and keyboard. Other input mechanisms use these. RS: What about PDA? Use their own system conventions, so ok. Action Ian: Propose new text for this. Questions: OS-conventions only? "All" supported input devices. JA: Do this in the rationale section. Action Ian: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on "through other software". Agenda 5) Charter changes [Judy] JB described charter renewal process. JB described proposed changes: a) Cosmetic (add links, some text, etc.) b) WG charter through May 2000. c) Deliverables: - Guidelines (in various states) - Techniques - Post-Recommendation report on implementation progress and recommendations for future work. - Meeting minutes d) Add comments about success criteria (deliverable completion, implementation experience, or broad commitment to implementation). GG: Don't we have fewer and bigger players than WCAG? JB: Operasoft is very small but very serious about accessibility. Size doesn't necessarily matter - timing of release is important. You might want to aim for commitment to implementation. e) Dependencies/Relations with other groups. - WAI WGs are obvious. - Other W3C WGs, primarily coordinated through WAI PF. - Other W3C WGs explicitly: DOM, MathML, SYMM, HTML, CC/PP (content negotation model), Voice Browsers, CSS. (Judy will highlight PF involvement) f) Estimated Milestones Last call: End of Aug Proposed Rec: End October Rec: Beginning December. g) Communication mechanisms. To discuss at another meeting: - Proposed face-to-face in Sept or Oct. Need to make this concrete soon if desired. Action Ian: Ensure this makes it to next telecon agenda. h) Time commitment of participants - Active members of WG will be required to reregister as per: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#JoinGroups (in response to the call for participation). - IPR disclosure required. (Probably not a lot of IPR clashes likely). (Refer to process document: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#ipr) JB: Are the guidelines drawing off of IPR of other guidelines? Doesn't seem to be the case. JB: For example, a Member might disclose a particular interface they might have a patent on, but this wouldn't affect the guidelines. Conclusion: People are ok with conclusions about charter changes discussed. Action Judy: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with deadline for comments by email or in next Weds' teleconf. After that, take to w3c management.
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 1999 13:48:14 UTC