- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:36:42 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
User Agent Teleconference
25 August 1999
Present:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Glen Gordon
Mark Novak
David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Marja Kiovunen
Rich Schwertdfeger
Jim Allan
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile
Regrets:
Denis Anson
Alan Cantor
Kitch Barnicle
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0174.html
0) For requests by Jon to RSVP, please respond privately to Jon
or Ian.
Agenda 1) Review of Action items:
1.JG: Run IE through guidelines.
Status:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0203.html
2.JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.
Status: Not done.
3.IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in
document.
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
4.IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
5.IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
6.IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
Status: Done.
7.IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes
conservatively to A, B, and C..."
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
8.IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position
in
the document.
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
9.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 got).
Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
10.IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.
Status: Not done.
11.IJ: Propose reordering to the list.
Status: Done.
12.IJ: Issue 56 resolution
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.
Status: Not done.
13.HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
HB Status: Pending.
HB Status: Pending.
14.HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
HB Status: Installed it and using it. For next week.
15.GR: Run Hal + Windowize through the guidelines.
HB Status: Pending.
16.GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration
for SELECT form control behavior.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html
17.DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
STatus: writing madly.
18.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
Status: Pending. Lynx 32, IE, NN, and Opera!
GG: Are these results for internal review only?
IJ: Working group should decide ultimate scope:
a) At least Team/WG.
b) Member-visible for Proposed Rec.
c) Should they be visible when we go to Recommendation?
CMN: I think it's public by charter requirement.
JG: Yes, anything posted to the list is public.
DP: When AFB did evaluation, we sent results to manufacturer
for comments before publication. We should consider
this to encourage (notably assistive technology) developers
to move towards conformance.
MK: But is the goal to evalute the guidelines or the product?
IJ: I propose linking to these reviews from the WG home page
with a proper disclaimer that these comments don't reflect
consensus.
GG: This issue arose since our beta product does a better job
than what's on the street.
No objections. Action Ian:
a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about
volatility of Working Drafts and products.
b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations.
Reviewers should be as specific as possible about
product versions, os versions, etc.
19.KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy.
Deadline for this action 2 weeks.
Status: Pending.
20.CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0178.html
21.GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
Status: Not done.
22.RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader.
Status: Done. Review pending.
Agenda 2) Dependent user agents that may also be considered
stand-alone user agents.
RS: For at least 40% of the checkpoints: If you're developing
a technology like PWWebspeak, market is users with blindness.
So, turn on/off blinking images should not be imposed
since not applicable.
JG: The spec says that if you don't support a particular
technology (e.g., images) the checkpoint doesn't apply.
RS: What if you do visual rendering also? What if you
render the Web page as would be seen by general user?
CMN: Like emacsspeak.
GR: When you talk about visual view of HomePage Reader,
is this the text-only view, or general graphic view?
RS: You may want both.
GR: Specifically about HPR - when you are looking at
"Netscape view", this isn't controlled by HPR.
The text view is. I think that there may be a case
for a third-classification. There may be dependencies,
but in some rendering cases there may not be
control.
IJ: I think that the tool that provides the UI is
responsible for UI-related checkpoints.
GR: But onus may be on the rendering engine for
some checkpoints. I think there's a case for
more clarification or a third classification.
CMN: I don't agree. If HPR passes rendered info
untouch, that doesn't mean they wash their hands
of it.
IJ: Ian reads clause about applicability of
checkpoints.
IJ: Question: 1) Is the clause sufficiently visible?
2) Does that cover the 40% you
are concerned with?
CMN: For the record: I don't think two classes are useful.
IJ: Perhaps applicability clause is sufficiently
flexible that two classes aren't necessary, but
I hesitate to reopen that issue.
Action RS: Consider the "applicability clause"
and propose rewording.
Action RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the
list.
Agenda 3) Issue 3
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#3
Navigation/Grouping techniques. To be coordinated with
WCAG WG at teleconference tomorrow.
Agenda 4) Issue 58
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#58
Keyboard access to select form controls when there is an
ONCHANGE event handler attached to the control
Refer to GR's modified proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html
RESOLVED: Modify checkpoint 10.6. Ian can edit the following
text from Gregory:
10.6 Prompt the user to confirm the submission of form content
if the submission mechanism is not explicitly activated by the
user. [Priority 2]
GR: Techniques in original proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0139.html
Agenda 5) Issue 63:
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#63
Checkpoint proposal from Marja to freeze time-sensitive content.
MK: Make available content that depends on time in a
time-independent manner. And allow people to "rewind"
time-sensitive content and find out temporal context
of particular content.
Same as issue 44, resolved last week to add a checkpoint for
time-sensitive active elements.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html
IJ: Do we need more than active elements?
JA: Is a media element considered an active element?
IJ: Covered by the multimedia checkpoints.
Resolved: For now, limit to active elements.
CMN: I'd like to link this issue back to the conformance
issue. It's unclear whether the SMIL player
conforms as a desktop graphical browser. If it doesn't
apply, who are we writing this checkpoint for.
Unclear from current conformance statement that the
guidelines apply to the SMIL player.
Agenda 6) Issue 73
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73
Text rendering of client-side image maps
IJ: In HTML, "alt" is required on AREA. But other
ways to create image maps without requiring
text attributes. "title" may not be present.
These are techniques.
MK: I think we need this checkpoint.
GG: I disagree. Unless there's a way of indicating
that the text links are duplications. Suppose
that there's an AREA element without an "alt"
attribute. We may use the URL and thus speak
it twice.
GR: I agree with this concern. I'd rather
the dependent user agent get information from
the markup rather than the renderer get the
information from duplication.
IJ: These are links and so covered by checkpoint 1.2.
RESOLVED:
a) Don't add a new checkpoint.
This issue is covered by checkpoint 1.2
b) Highlight the case of image maps in comment after 1.2
c) Include techniques for image maps (e.g.,
getting alt text of image in link, using title,
getting external text media objects for SMIL.)
Action: IJ send proposal to WCAG to propose different
wording on the requirement for text rendering
by UAs.
Agenda 7) Issue 72
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#72
What should UAs do with metadata? (Asked for by WCAG 1.0).
IJ: Broad issue: might be keywords, supplemental info,
doc relationships, natural language, navigation
bar, Dublin Core, etc.
JG: Lynx, Amaya use LINK.
Action CMN: Talk to Dan Brickley about document structure
and site mapping. Will send a list of tools that
make use of this information.
GR: Another issue that keeps popping up for me in the
guidelines: a lot say "If this happens, do this."
Metadata one framework for this.
CMN: For list of links, metadata is the long way around.
JG: We need to have a list of metadata elements and
attributes in HTML, SMIL, also schemas. Perhaps
add checkpoints related to that which we don't
already cover.
(Source means element and attribute).
Action Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
Action Ian: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.
Action Jim: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS.
(e.g., generated text)
Action CMN: Propose something about schemas.
Deadline two weeks.
Agenda 8) Issue 74:
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#74
Value of checkpoint on volume control.
Resolved last week.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html
Agenda 9) Issue 75:
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#75
Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs?
Proposed: Add "electronic".
CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in
electronic form. "Ensure that there is a version of the
product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"
Resolved: Change wording of 3.1 as per CMN's proposal.
Agenda 10) Configuration checkpoints.
GR: Two checkpoints proposed: one for links and one for
forms.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html
JG: Will be on agenda for next week.
Agenda 11) Order of guidelines.
IJ: See proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0185.html
DP: Add explanation of order.
Resolved: Implement this proposal with explanation in upcoming
draft.
Agenda 12) Reminders:
a) Next face-to-face in November. Meeting page:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/1999/10/ua-agenda
b) Following face-to-face in January
CMN: Does there need to be an implementation period
during or after Last Call?
Action CMN: Send proposal about this to the list.
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 1999 13:36:57 UTC