- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:43:08 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
User Agent Guidelines Teleconf
6 October 1999
Present:
Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Charles McCathieNeville
Al Gilman
Daniel Dardailler
Mark Novak
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle
Rich Schwerdtfeger
David Poehlman
Regrets:
Gregory
Agenda [1]
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/wai-ua-telecon-19991006.html#agenda
1) Review of action items:
1.JG: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
2.JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames
Status: Done.
3.GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
4.GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
5.DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines
Status: Will be done for face-to-face.
6.MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note.
JG: Will contact Madeleine.
7.IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution
of the conformance issues related to assistive technology
Status: Done.
2) Announcements:
1.No telecon on 13 October 1999
2.Send agenda items to UA face-to-face.
3.DOM 2 in last call until 8 October.
3) Agenda items for face-to-face?
(No input from those present).
DP: Will Netscape be at the meeting?
IJ: I've written Mozilla but haven't gotten a reply.
Action JG: I will invite Lake Rocca to WG and face-to-face.
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html
4) Issue #96: Issues related to Checkpoint 2.1: Mapping of user agent
functions to control mechanisms and
memory demands related to sequential/direct access to
functionalities.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#96
IJ: Any proposals?
AG: The way I understand Marja's issue that is not currently
covered: it's possible for discrete access strategies to fail because
they require too many steps. There are two separate issues in terms of
the logic:
a) Visual/Memory
b) Multistep/Single step
People can fail to use key access to print because the number of
keystrokes becomes a burden.
IJ: 5 October version has requirement of single key access for
frequently used functionalities.
JG: Summarizing
a) How can we encapsulate demands on memory in a checkpoint?
b) Orientation issue: keyboard commands must be documented.
Action IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be
changed.
5) Additional checkpoint suggestions:
RS:
a) Section 6 on observe standards. There's no checkpoint that
addresses loading Java applets into the JVM. Proposed in [2]:
6.7 Support plug-in and virtual machine system conventions for
loading and
running an assistive technology. For example, the Sun Java
virtual machine
supports loading and running of assistive technologies. (priority
1)
Action JG: Add this to issues list.
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0063.html
6) Issue #89: Proposed changes in conformance based on
interoperable UA and non-interoperable UA
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#89
PROPOSAL 1)
IJ: I proposed splitting 1.1. I think that two important concepts
should be separated.
No objections to the split.
IJ: Also related: Does a tool have to support ALL OS input device
APIs?
Resolved: Clarify 1.1 so that UAs don't have to support all input
device APIs available on an OS. If you support a type of API,
support the system standard API.
MN: Note that MS Platform requires support for both mouse and
keyboard APIs. The UAGL only requires keyboard API support.
Thus, in this case, the UAGL is less strict than the MS
platform guidelines.
RS: Perhaps a checkpoint that says to use "most common API" for
the system (which might be pen input, for example).
JG: Can we put this somewhere in Guideline 1?
RS: Can we include examples?
Action Rich: Draft a proposal for a checkpoint about using
"common" input/output device APIs for the given system.
Action Ian: Split 1.1, clarify that not all APIs required. Results
dependent on Rich proposal.
PROPOSAL 2)
Ensure that the user has access to the content of
an element selected by the user.
IJ: I changed "content" to "structure".
JG: I prefer "content"
HB: I think "structure" is also important.
IJ: Do 3.1, 9.2, and 8.3 count?
RS: Ensure that the user has access to the content of an
element selected by the user programmatically, through a
dependent user agent, or through voice input.
IJ: So just shorten to "Ensure that the user has
access to the selected content."
RS: So just remove "for dependent user agents"
Resolved: "Ensure that the user has access to
selected content."
Change Note to mention programmatic access,
structure, and that cell content can spoken, etc.
PROPOSAL 3) Checkpoint 3.3. This checkpoint should not be
for dependent user agents only. Refer to issue 84.
Resolved: For all user agents.
PROPOSAL 4) Checkpoint 8.3. Proposed for all user agents and adding
a Note.
IJ: Any reason to single out tables?
CMN: I don't think there's any reason. Tables are two-dimensional,
so they pose an additional problem of access. The critical
part is access to relevant information, which includes table
structure.
KB: If there's a checkpoint for table navigation, then we can drop
this.
DP: We definitely need to emphasize table navigation. There are
probably
other multi-dimensional elements and we could regroup them. I
don't want to bury a table navigation checkpoint.
IJ: What should the priority be?
Resolved: Leave 8.3. Make for all user agents. Add Note proposed
by Ian.
PROPOSAL 5) Checkpoint 9.2. The current text:
Provide the user with information about the number
of viewports.
IJ: What's the goal here? Is it actually the number of viewports?
IJ: Change to "Provide a list of open viewports (including
frames)."?
IJ: "Provide information about viewport structure and focus."
E.g., the structure of a frameset.
Resolve: Delete based on new 9.3
PROPOSAL 6) Checkpoint 9.3
Proposed: Allow the user to view a document outline
built from its structural elements
(e.g., from header and list elements).
IJ: For all user agents. Does "page source" count?
Consensus: Page source doesn't suffice.
Resolved: Make 9.3 for all user agents. Mention frames explicitly.
PROPOSAL: Make Guideline 7 for all open standards.
No objections to moving 6.6 to Guideline 7.
Action Ian:
1) Guideline 7 more than just about w3c technologies
2) Add checkpoint 6.6
ISSUE) What do we do about 9.9 and 9.10 (cell headers and table
dimensions)?
JG: I'd like to keep 9.9.
DP: I'd like to keep 9.10.
Action Ian: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about
table summary information.
Adjourned
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 1999 13:43:14 UTC