- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:37:02 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance Chair: Jon Gunderson Scribe: Jim Allan Present: Ian Jacobs Glen Gordon Rich Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Charles McCathieNevile Gregory J. Rosmaita Minutes Completed Action Items IJ: Micropayments issue: Status: Discussion launched with Micropayments WG. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0258.html done- discussed at PF f2f JRG: Take to CG and see what PF's role will be. message to Al Gilman that this is a PF issue. Done, sent message to CG group IJ: Send proposal to list to propose 9 July Draft (with today's changes) to IG. done, group agreed, Judy or Ian to message IG about draft IJ: Add checkpoint about default keyboard configs not interfering with system conventions. (See details below). done IJ: Propose rationale text for guideline 1 explaining relationship between input mechanisms and system conventions. done IJ: - Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on "through other software". done, followup email to discuss in today's meeting, refer to conformance by using other software, need a checkpoint IJ: Ensure that discussion of face-to-face on next agenda done JB: Announce new charter to UAGL WG with deadline for comments by email or in next Weds' teleconf. After that, take to W3C management. no comments to list, JG no comments, charter to management, no questions from attendees Continued Action Items CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list. IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending HB: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. open New Action Items IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people IJ: Review member participation for next week JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon Discussion RS: tech question, some items don't make sense. bullet item- how to specify in html IJ: right, to be filled in later, techniques still in process F2F Meeting during post proposed recommendation stage JG: move to proposed REC in next month or two, in proposed for 6 weeks, need f2f to discuss issues, looking at sites on west coast in early October GG: ATIA conference (1st week October-Orlando 6-9) and CTG Oct 18-25 RS: out last week of Oct 14-16 and Oct 31-Nov 1 IJ: arrange calendars, has open calendar JA: not available Sept 25 - Oct 3, CTG Oct 18-25 RS: perhaps piggy back on ATIA JG: what about west coast RS: ATIA convenient for GG JG: never had meeting in SE USA, what about before conference GG: after is better JG: need a host group, with some funding from host group IJ: host coordinates, funds a dinner GG: talk to Wilson about this, St. Pete is far from JG: talk to Judy about this, perhaps 10-12 IJ: need 8 weeks notice ACTION IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f JG: need f2f comments IJ: YES, more efficient, get more done Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on "through other software". IJ: section on conformance in some revision, either conform or don't , then changed to conform by desktop or dependent, then WCAG, then use WCAG conformance, second clause - native implementation or interaction to other software, no check points for interaction with other software. if we don't talk about it then drop clause. propose dropping because no checkpoints JG: communication with other software was murky, MS was not happy, if we provide it but nobody uses it is that still conformance, don't need clause IJ: lots of evolution in GL, have dropped lots of language, shifted to dependent UA JG: both clauses for GUI and dependent agents would be removed. GG: makes life easier, conform by doing it natively, the native thing will be to support this API JG: conformance, one statement for AT or dependent, broke it up to Desktop UA and AT, previous version said one conformance - if GUI with AT can meet check point then you have conformance. Now, only do what UAGL says, with out dependence on other software or technology IJ: do it through interface, 3) it needs to be done (i.e. table access) RS: why not require cell navigation JG: desktop not braille, not speech, but provide access to this information, must make browser accessible to text to speech software, RS: browser is designed for the blind, need to allow other AT to connect to your browser JG: yes, must allow interoperability with other software IJ: people may have other disabilities, may not be just blind, user may be using other software in addition to talking browser, must support standard API in answer to HB question-can I enter text from mouse... RS: special case browser for mobility, blind, IJ: yes, if they are stand alone, and may be used with other technology then yes, if in a kiosk and no ability to connect other software then now. RS: special API like IE, help facility add helper object and access to DOM IJ: expect timely access to DOM, manipulate user interface controls, read and write information about controls, selection, focus, may need to review guideline- JG: what is required of desktop or AT IJ: GL aimed at desktop and AT, RS sited another class, if new class want to conform must choose one of the classes, if WebSpeak claim conformance as AT then don't have to work with or allow other AT access, if conform as a desktop then must work with AT JG: want cooperation between AT, need cross disability AT cooperation and working together ACTION RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. JG: questions about IJ conformance suggestion RESOLVED: checkpoint 1.3 review, clause removal--all ok IJ: if still questions, another class of browser- make a proposal if we finish document, and make a profile of class of browser and conformance list, intentionally choose these two classes, Techniques Document JG: RS made earlier comment, not much there, JG: to add to techniques what strategies can we use to get people to write techniques IJ: techniques history...less vital than guidelines, storehouse of information, hard to keep it interesting, structure keeps changing, current structure seems to work, hard to contribute in past, should be easier not, wide open to contributions how to get them? tricky, think about it in parts, review existing browsers and make suggestions based on what's needed. need developer input RS: like structure IJ: in order to go to REC, Tim BL says must have solid techniques before last call and REC, techniques is reflection on how real the guidelines are, use techniques to strengthen the GL RS: id sections that need work, not clear what's needed IJ: like RS contribution on Java RS: problems with speed accessing DOM or COM, reality is different from making statements and test case JG: what would help, make a list of what's needed, identify others to focus on a section IJ: assigned tasks in AU group, brute force, is one approach, each person has expertise in specific areas, as editor created a usable structure JG: people have contributed work RS: id sections, who has expertise ACTION JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people JG: other ideas IJ: some material is mildly complete, sketch form, bullets, need to make paragraphs JG: describe how something happens based on some tool with screen shots, IJ: looking for resources, how to XXX? RS: table stuff would be good for Kathy Laws (IBM) to look at RS: nobody from Microsoft in attendance lately, Why? IJ: Judy been talking, questions about MS and Netscape participation. Don't know. ACTION IJ: Review member participation for next week Guideline 9: Help orient the user JG: need a laundry list of needed features and CMN: has queried disability listservs to get important issues- what users need orientation to, currently 25 checkpoints and need more list versus succinct list is good for conformance, lots of things to check off at different levels succinct easier for integration and creativity, i.e. for navigation, give general concept or direction, then expand in techniques. IJ: no feedback from blinux people, what to shorten list, but no feedback shorten to 10 checkpoints and move other stuff to techniques. where is line drawn for inaccessibility JG: schism between GL 8 and GL 9, 8 is general, 9 is specific, problem editorially, may be confusing to end user of GL IJ: option, more abstract principle, or combine, or chop out what is not needed JG: question, discrepancy between 8 and 9, should 9 be more similar to 8 (less checkpoints) GG: afraid to say yes, fear of task, lean toward brevity RS: move some to checkpoints ACTION JG and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon RS: would make document less ominous Other Discussion GG: examples in techniques, put blindfold on try to use, or have page with 1000 links and get to link 800 without a mouse IJ: scenario GG: allow nav without mouse, have page with 1000 links and get to link 800 without a mouse rhetorical to make a point IJ: Great! need more of this, giving rationale use scenario to illustrate, Strong YES GG: developers should be able to get check point right if they have the concept JG: other issues no all around 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 Wednesday, 21 July 1999 14:37:11 UTC