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

Raw minutes from 18 Aug meeting

From: by way of Jon Gunderson <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:27:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199908181822.NAA28947@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814UA Teleconf
18 August 1999

Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Kitch Barnicle
Charles McCathieNevile
David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
Madelaine Rothberg
Marja Koivunen
Denis Anson
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Håkon Lie
Jim Allan
Mark Novak

Agenda [1]


Agenda 1) Review of outstanding action items

IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document.
Status: Not done.

IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
Status: Not done.

IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
Status: Not done.

IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
Status: Not done.

IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes conservatively to
A, B, and C..."
Status: Not done.

IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in the
Status: Not done.

IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a
link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've
Status: Not done.

IJ: Checkpoint 6.12 (audio volume): Clarify that checkpoint is for native
handling of sound.
Status: Not done.

CMN: Checkpoint 9.4 and 9.6 - Write a proposal on making this or not making
this checkpoint "for dependent UAs only".
Status: Dropped.
     CMN: I think "dependent/independent" is not a useful dividing

CMN: Technique 3.3 - Propose outline of techniques for user control of style
Techniques 3.3.
Status: Done. 

GR: Guideline 9 - Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for
guideline 9 (any information made available to the user). 
Status: Done.

DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
Status: Not done.

GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
Status: Not done.

HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
HB Status: No progress.

Agenda 2) Update on F2F meeting in Redman Washington on October 11th
and 12th.

HB: 11 October is a holiday in the US and Canada.

JG: Anyone would not attend because of holidays?

Conclusion: No.

DA: I probably can't make it since I'll be at ATIA just before.

Agenda 3) Impact Matrix.

IJ: Refer to Impact Matrix being developed in GL WG [2]

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/NOTE-WCAG-impact-matrix-19990810

DA: Proposes change in terminology "functional limitation"
rather than "disabilitly". It becomes a disability when
the environment demands that function of you.

HB: Functional limitation may result from bandwidth, environment, etc.

Action Kitch: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy.
(Thanks Kitch!) Deadline for this action 2 weeks.

Agenda 4) Categories of assistive technologies

Issue #77: Validate conformance categories

Issue #79: How do specialized browsers like pwWebSpeak and IBM Homepage Reader
conform to the guidelines?

JG: Need to identify browsers, assistive techs (including input
technologies), and specialized browsers with particular output in

IJ: Reminder:
a) Some kind of conformance clause necessary
b) Division exists to promote interoperability.

DP: Where does browsing the Web by phone fit in?
I think of guidelines based on constraints, not application
type. But UA developers should be able to use the guidelines
to enhance accessibility of their product. 

DA: What happened to the discussion going on at different
media types?

JG: Already in guidelines - you don't have to satisfy
checkpoints that don't apply.

DA: If you make content available to some users, you should
make it available to all users.

IJ: I don't think we should change the conformance
statement unless there's a proposal for a new category.
We've already covered lots of ground w.r.t. conformance.

GR: I think the impact matrix will help, notably if
one can sort according to different fields.

KB: Has anyone tried to apply the guidelines to a UA?

CMN: I did this with Opera (and did so with Amaya for Authoring Tools
guidelines). Useful exercise for developers as well as editors. Håkon
took away notes, and I sent a summary [3] to the UA list.  

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0098.html

CMN: In a review:
a) Indicate what's been done already
b) Ask what would be done for those not
    yet done (and list that as technique).

IJ: Please also indicate which assistive technologies work
with which graphical desktop browsers.

Action HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.

Action GR: Run Hal through the guidelines.

Action DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.

Action CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines. 

Action JG: Run IE through guidelines. 

Action IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.

Action RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader. 
GR: Ask Guido Corona to do this?

DP: Can we ask for additional assistance with evalutions that
haven't been filled?

IJ: Yes!

PLEASE REVIEW using the 9 August draft [4]
[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/

Deadline for these actions 2 weeks.

Agenda 5) Reorder guidelines to place more important guidelines at the
beginning of the document?

Issue #59:

Action Ian: Propose reordering to the list.

Agenda 6) 
Issue #34: Allow the user to view assumed headers associated with a cell

JG: Proposed that in techniques, use header markup when present.
But need repair strategy for incomplete or absent header information.
E.g., try using the first row and column as headers.

Action JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.

Agenda 7) 
Issue #44: Navigation of time dependent multimedia elements rendered to the
user (more than just stop, rewind and fast forward)

IJ: In short, present time-independent information in a
time-independent manner (notably links).

DA: Helps cognitive.

MK: Helps motor as well.

JG: Also screen-reader or caption users.

IJ: Should users be able to override all synchronization?

MK: Difficult to say in the general case.

Resolved new checkpoint: Provide time-independent access
to time-sensitive active elements. Priority 1. For all user

MR: I think this is an appropriate narrowing.

Agenda 8) Provide orientation to audio (or video) to length and/or
position in the rendering of the information

Issue #56:

JG: Is it an accessibility issue to know how long a video
or audio track will run?

MR: Make available this information in a device-independent

IJ: Covered by checkpoint 1.6.

DP: Fits into 10.5 pretty much.

DA: Does streaming work here?

IJ: Should this be part of document viewing or separate
as a "multimedia" checkpoint? In other words, do I want
to know that I'm 10% through the whole document, or 50%
through the current clip?

MR: Could be useful to distinguish for multimedia players.
However, based on my current experience with multimedia players,
this information is often there. Considered useful in general.

Action Ian:
a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6.
b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6
c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6.

Agenda 9) Keyboard access to select form controls when there is an ONCHANGE
event handler attached to the control

Issue #58: http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#58

IJ: The issue is that some pages have scripts that cause the
page to change when an option is selected. Issue of orientation
and user control.

GR: Refer to my proposal [5]
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html

MR: What's the difference between never submit without asking and
prompt? Indeed, a lot of Web pages have a select list that could be
activated automatically, but there's also a "GO" button for older

DA: What's the screen reader behavior when you move among options
without submitting?

IJ: Four situations:
a) Never submit, and don't warn me that you're not submitting.
b) Never submit, and warn me each time that you're not submitting.
c) Prompt me before submitting.
d) Don't prompt me before submitting.

Action GR: Clarify your proposal.
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 14:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:22 UTC