- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:58:28 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Attendance
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
RSVP Present:
David Poehlman
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Kitch Barnicle
Denis Anson
Dick Brown
Charles McCathieNevile
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
RSVP Regrets:
Mark Novak
Mickey Quenzer
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Jim Allen
Action Items
Completed Action Items
1.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
Status: Include URL in conformance claim
2.IJ: If W3C Comm Team develops a statement related to NFB vs. AOL, keep
the UAGL WG informed.
Status: No information
3.JG: Contact David Clark about UCP contact and personal review the
guidelines
Status: done
4.KB: Review techniques for Guideline 7
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0412.html
5.JA: Review techniques for topic 3.1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0326.html
6.JA: Review techniques for Guideline 4
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0350.html
7.DB: Contact Dave Bolnick about SAMI accessibility features to include
in techniques document and see if he would be willing to
review the guidelines.
Status: done
8.GR: Review techniques for topic 3.5
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0342.html
9.HB: Send problem statement to the ua list and www-html-editor@w3.org
related to table header algorithm
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0334.html
10.CMN: Review techniques for Guideline 9
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0395.html
Continued Action Items
1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
2.IJ: Bring table header algorithm problem to html wg
3.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
4.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft.
5.RS: Send last call document to IBM's Web Team in Austin.
6.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
7.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 3 (Multi-media)
8.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
9.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
10.DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last call
draft when available
11.CMN: Review techniques for topic 3.6
Staus: Partially done,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0394.html
12.GR: Send example of using CSS pseudo element list numbering using
content tag
13.GR: Check if their is a css pseudo class for lang change in document
14.MRK: Send proposal for configuration options for checkpoint 2.2.3 to
the list, GR will help
15.MRK: to send SMIL examples to the list of problems related SMIL
rendering of time-dependent links
New Action Items
1.IJ: Publish new working draft of guidelines on 6 December
2.IJ: Ian to work with Eric checkpoint related to dependency issues in
WCAG (EH proposed checkpoint 6.1A)
3.IJ: Take "synchronized equivalent" to SYMM WG.
4.JG: Talk to Rich about setting up teleconf for F2f meeting
5.JG: Send proposed weekly telecon day and time change to the list for
comment
Minutes
NOTE: Ian will chair next week. Jon back 7 December.
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0386.html
1) Review Open Action Items
1.IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
Proposed IJ: Suggest including a URI to all pertinent information.
This would amend the "How to claim conformance" section.
2.IJ: If W3C Comm Team develops a statement related to NFB vs. AOL, keep
the UAGL WG informed.
IJ: No Comm Team input.
3.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
IJ: Not done.
4.IJ: Bring table header algorithm problem to html wg
IJ: Pending.
5.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.2 to 8.9
8.2 Done.
6.JG: Contact David Clark about UCP contact and personal review the
guidelines
Status: DC will review. Also Steve Mendelsohn (who is on the board)
will also review the document.
7.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft.
Status: Pending.
8.KB: Review techniques for Guideline 7
Status: Partially done.
9.RS: Send last call document to IBM's Web Team in Austin.
RS not here.
10.JA: Review techniques for topic 3.1
Status: Done.
11.JA: Review techniques for Guideline 4
Status: Done.
12.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
Status: ?
13.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 3 (Multi-media)
Status: ?
14.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
Status: ?
15.DB: Contact Dave Bolnick about SAMI accessibility features to include
in techniques document and see if he would be willing to
review the guidelines.
Status: Done.
DB: He didn't think there was much that pertained to SAMI. But will
take a look at it. Is anyone looking at HTML+Time? I'll ask
him about that.
16.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
Status: Done. I've also asked Tim Lacy to do a review. He'll be back
next week. I'll also send to the IE Team.
17.DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last call
draft when available
Status: Pending. The IE Team may consider the Ian/Charles meeting at
MS part of their review.
18.CMN: Review techniques for Guideline 9
Status: Done/Dropped.
19.CMN: Review techniques for topic 3.6
Status: Pending. Some email sent already.
20.GR: Review techniques for topic 3.5
Status: Done.
21.GR: Send example of using CSS pseudo element list numbering using
content tag
Status: Pending.
IJ: Re links to middle of a document; Team seems to think this is a
good idea.
22.GR: Check if their is a css pseudo class for lang change in document.
Status: Pending.
23.HB: Send problem statement to the ua list and www-html-editor@w3.org
related to table header algorithm
Status: Done.
24.MRK: Send proposal for configuration options for checkpoint 2.2.3 to
the list, GR will help
Status: ALmost done.
25.MRK: to send SMIL examples to the list of problems related SMIL
rendering of time-dependent links
Status: Pending.
2) Face-to-face
DB: I can't make it. Can I conference in?
IJ: We could use IRC and possibly a W3C bridge.
DB: MS could pay for the setup.
Action JG: Talk to Rich about setting up teleconf.
3) Announcements:
1.Today is the registration deadline for Austin.
2.Teleconf scheduled for TUESDAY 7 December at 12pm (for 90 mins) We'll
set the agenda for the ftf meeting at this teleconf.
3.No teleconf 8 December (due to travel).
4.We need to renew the bridge for the first quarter of 2000. Some
suggestions to see the call moved to Thursday at the same time.
Would start first week in January.
CMN: I'll be in Australia. It would be a big help to me.
DA: Much better for me.
DB: No problem for me.
IJ: Works for me.
KB: May be a problem for me.
MRK: May be a problem for me. Later better.
Proposed time at 13:00 ET.
Action Jon: send to the list.
4) Issue 114
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#114
JG: Rich isn't here, I'd rather hold off on this.
DA: Any language that would refer to the most recent DOM REC should be ok.
We will wait until Rich is on the call.
5) On incorporating techniques
CMN: In ATAG, we decided on a model that unless someone complained about a
technique, it made it into the document.
IJ: That's the way I've been working on the techniques.
GR: We are anticipating a final techniques review?
IJ: What form would that take? I think a teleconf doesn't work.
IJ: I propose:
a) Ask for review
b) If no objections, I'll just add and edit.
6) On incorporating editorial changes to guidelines
IJ: Will there be a new GL draft for the ftf? I propose that we do, that
take into account Eric's edits.
Action IJ: Ian will produce a new draft 6 December for the ftf that takes
into account suggestions from Eric. People can send
comments/objections and we can discuss issues at face-to-face.
DP: Comment on the introduction: In the bulleted list in the intro, put
cognitive in the same group with visual, auditory, physical. Might
separate disabilities from universal access issues.
IJ: Ok.
7) Issue 111
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111
IJ: Eric Hansen thought 6.1 should be relative priority.
Issue #6: Checkpoints 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 need restructuring and revision.
Proposed: new checkpoint "Provide single-stroke access to user agent
functionalities".
DA: Not enough keys to go around.
DP: I think the proposal is too vague.
KB: Do we want the UA developer to make the choice of what should have
single-key access? Second level is allowing the user to make
that choice? I worry about the case where the developer builds in a lot of
single key access and that the user inadvertently activates
functionalities.
MRK: You could have some single-key defaults.
JG: Highlight in navigation section? for high-frequency functions.
GR: Point to common single-key defaults per platform (conventions).
KB: What's an example of single key access? Is "Alt-F" a single keystroke?
CMN: In Opera, there are a lot of single-key ways to access functionalities
("F5") and Lynx.
IJ: I don't think "Alt-F" is single key.
CMN: Tricky on a smaller keyboard like Intellikeys or switching devices.
DB: What need are we meeting?
JG: People with motor disabilities.
DB: Single key can be tricky since so few keys. What can't Bryan do with
current browsers?
KB: Opera allows him to jump from header to header with a single letter key.
CMN: Or link to link in IE or Lynx.
CMN: You need to be able to configure access. You may have a strong need to
include single key access.
IJ: That's what the current checkpoint 10.3 currently says.
IJ: I think EH misunderstood the checkpoint text and based on that, I
propose that we leave as is.
From EH's comments:
I feel that the _requirement_ for single-stroke changing of configuration
is too restrictive.
We didn't mean that configuration had to be single stroke but rather that
one be able to activate important functionalities with a preferred
keystroke.
Resolved: Leave as is.
Issues #7/#8: Break checkpoint 6.1 into two separate checkpoints - 6.1.A
and 6.1.B.
IJ: I understand this to mean "UA developers should implement what WCAG
tells them to do."
KB: The "until user agents".
IJ: We already cover all the "until UA" clauses in other checkpoints.
MRK: Having a generic checkpoint means less maintenance over time.
IJ: I have some problems with future-looking checkpoints. "I can't forgive
you for things you haven't done yet." (Elvis Costello).
DB: How can I miss you if you won't go away?
CMN: If you can't live without me, why aren't you dead yet?
/* End country western quotes */
DP: If there will be a later version of UAGL, wouldn't it be better to
evolve in a new draft?
CMN: The ATAG does both: we say "Do what WCAG says." This ensures
modularity. You don't want to have to change one document
everytime every other one changes. I think a new checkpoint is not a bad
idea in principle. But you don't want to write too many blank
checks to other working groups.
JG: Is a redundant checkpoint a problem?
Action IJ:Ian to work with Eric on a proposal.
Issue #11: Change "closed captions" to "captions" throughout the document.
MRK: I think the change is ok. We would need to define it.
JG: Any objections?
Resolved: Use "caption". In definition of caption, make clear that in
context, may refer to table captions not accessibility captions.
More minor:
- "Braille" or "braille"?
GR: Capital "B" is the convention in print since derived from a proper
name, although lowercase "b" also used. I think uppercase "B" would
stand out more. Websters prefers capital "B".
IJ: My issue is inconsistency with WCAG. Websters online shows small "b"
preferred.
Resolved: uppercase "B" is chosen since no objections.
- Issue #13: Is braille accepted as a natural language?
GR, CMN: No.
IJ: What about contractions?
GR: Braille is an abstraction. There are implementations with contractions.
Resolved: Remove from defn of natural language.
- Is braille also haptic?
CMN: Yes. But refer to Al's comments.
Issue #16. Eliminate the use of "continuous equivalent track".
IJ: EH proposes "synchronized equivalent" instead.
IJ: Fits with WCAG. Any important info other than the the synchronized part?
MRK: I prefer "continuous" since it captures time-dependency.
DP: I prefer "continuous" as well.
JG: This refers to alternatives, you would want the content synchronized.
Action IJ: Take "synchronized equivalent" to SYMM WG.
Issue #17. Simplify checkpoint 2.5.
JG: We use "rendered" consistently.
Resolved: Add "relevant". Use of "synchronized equivalent" pending SYMM WG
feedback.
Issue #18. Handle "on the fly" auditory descriptions. This is a proposed
new checkpoint to mirror WCAG 1.3
IJ: EH wants a requirement to render text to speech within a year of a W3C
spec on that topic.
MRK: In what language?
CMN: I don't think we should require this.
DB: I think the expectation is that the system as a whole will do this and
the UAs will take advantage of those capabilities.
MRK: Does spoken text have to be synchronized? It's not easy to synchronize
auditory descriptions. How do you synchronize
automatically?
CMN: This is very techniquey, but if your text if synchronized already, you
can use that.
MRK: But text sync is different than audio since you have to mix different
audio tracks.
MRK: My problem is that WCAG doesn't make sense because of the difficulties
of synchronization.
IJ: Two options:
a) WCAG is wrong
b) "User agents" in WCAG doesn't necessarily mean mainstream browsers.
Therefore, since UAGL not catering to all user agents, no need
today for an additional checkpoint.
c) Also, if you already support text to speech, your UA will already be
required to render the text equivalent as speech.
Resolved: No additional checkpoint.
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
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
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 15:00:26 UTC