- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:36:31 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Also available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/07/wai-ua-telecon-19990728.html Attendance Chair: Jon Gunderson Scribe: Ian Jacobs Present: David Poehlman Harvey Bingham Cathy Laws Gregory Rosmaita Marja Koivunen Regrets: Jim Allan Glen Gordon Rich Schwerdtfeger Charles McCathieNevile Completed Action Items IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending ( asked CMN to copy his message to IG) HB: Ask Allan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. open JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people (phone discussion held on 27 July 1999) JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html Continued Action Items CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list. HB: Ask Allan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. IJ: Review member participation for next week (waiting for response from Judy Brewer) New Action Items JG/IJ: Will finalize dates for next F2F by next teleconf 4 August and announce on 5 August. GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a frameset context. IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. Also, look into bidi support. IJ: Write a proposal to combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded something like: "Make available information about a focused link to to enable the user to decide whether to follow the link. In particular, make available whether the link has been visited and whether it involves a fee." GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any information made available to the user). Minutes Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0050.html Reference Document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/ REVIEW OF OPEN ACTION ITEMS a) CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list. b) IJ: Send similar request to IG. done. IJ: CMN has agreed to forward his email to the IG list directly. c) HB: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. Status: Pending. HB: It wasn't Len, it was Alan Cantor. No reply yet. JB: Note: Alan Cantor is expected to participate in the WG starting soon. d) IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f Status: Done. e) RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. Status: Pending. CL: HPR is more like PWWebspeak - neither graphical desktop user agent nor dependent user agent. GR: Can HRP operate independently of netscape? CL: No, but not dependent on the user interface, only the datastream. f) JG and IJ: to identify who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people. Status: Done. JG: Will discuss in this conference call: Consider each technique section in teleconf and create outline for the section. Ask people to fill out the outline. g) IJ: Review member participation for next week. Status: Pending. h) JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon Status: Done. Refer to Agenda 2. DISCUSSION Agenda 1) Face to face meeting after last call. JG: Goal is to review comments after last call working draft (late September, early October). One idea is to schedule around ATIA meeting in Florida. We'd like a UA developer to host the meeting. Would be strategic. JG: Possible dates: a) 30 Sept - 1 Oct (at a developer site) b) 9-10 Oct (after ATIA, in Orlando) IJ: Any known constraints? MK: October 9-10 might be difficult. CL: Both ok. HB: Both ok. IJ: Both ok. JG: Both ok. DP: Both ok. GR: Both ok. Would prefer 9-10. IJ: For 8-week minimum announcement, need to announce by 5 August. ACTION: JG/IJ: Will finalize dates by next teleconf 4 August and announce on 5 August. Proposed changes to Guideline 9 on orientation [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html JG: Goals: Create more general checkpoints. Reduce the number of checkpoints. IJ: Info lost in generalization. Not verifiable if too general. Discussion of Proposed Checkpoint: Provide summary information about the current view [Priority 1, Both]. IJ: Is it ok if "highlighting" lost? Wasn't this important for identification by other tools? GR: For those things that were priority 1 and have been consolidated, need to ensure covered by general checkpoints. RESOLVED: Combine 9.1-9.3 into one checkpoint, listing view, selection, and focus all together. GR: One problem with frames is that with text-to-speech technology, if you don't know that you are in a frame, the screen reader will it as the only view. You don't know, e.g., if you follow a link, that another view has been updated. If you know you're in a frame, you can use the UA's (desktop or screen reader) nav mechanism. MK: Still need to know that the view has changed. IJ: This is covered in a different checkpoint. DP: If current view changes something not in current view, still need to know this. RESOLVED: 9.7 is covered by 9.1 - a frame is a type of view. JG: In Techniques, show frames as examples. MK: We want to know that a frame is a navigation bar. DP: Script-based changes concern me more than static frames. RESOLVED: Add to 10.1: "about document and view changes". Ensure that it's clear that this refers to changes in any view, not just current. RESOLVED: Add to 10.1, an example that refers to scripts that pop up information dynamically. ACTION: GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a frameset context. About checkpoint 9.9: Natural language identification. DP: Propose checkpoint to allow users to turn on/of support for natural language. JG: Several cases: Support language correctly when supported Don't do the wrong think when not supported. Identify language changes. Conclusions for langauge checkpoint(s): Some language-related checkpoint(s) are important since used in WCAG 1.0 and required for access. Checkpoint should stand alone. ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. HB: What about bidi support? ACTION: IJ: Look into this. (Note: 9.14 is also in third proposed checkpoint, so will be considered in that context.) Discussion of Proposed Checkpoint: Provide information about the attributes of a current element. IJ: i. Info not always in attributes (could be dynamic, could be in elements). ii. No accessibility issue conveyed by checkpoint. GR: Maybe talk about "status" information instead. GR: Proposes "Provide status information about links." IJ: Is 9.16 of high value? GR: I think so. IJ: Goal is to provide user with information that allows them to decide whether to follow a link (fee, already visited, in same document, language of target, etc.). GR: Yes. If you're going through a list of links, it's useful to know that you're at link X of Y (where Y is total number of links). ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal: a) Combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded something like: "Make available information about a focused link to to enable the user to decide whether to follow the link. In particular, make available whether the link has been visited and whether it involves a fee." Other examples: language of target, external, etc. b) Rationale: People browser by tabbing among links. c) Techniques for providing this information. MK: You may not want by spoken language always. You may want sounds to indicate that a fee is required, etc. GR: PROPOSED: "Allow user to configure what information about links is presented." I may want link text or "title". (e.g., with screen readers). ACTION: GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any information made available to the user). 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, 28 July 1999 14:31:40 UTC