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

Raw minutes from 7 December UAGL teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:48:28 -0500
Message-ID: <384D567C.16E76BF1@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
User Agent Guidelines Teleconference
7 December 1999


Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Denis Anson
Gregory Rosmaita
David Poehlman
Madeleine Rothberg
Dick Brown (late)



REMINDER: No teleconf 8 December.

1) Review Open Action Items

   1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2 
         Not done.

   2.IJ: Publish new working draft of guidelines on 6 December 

   3.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9 
         Not done.

   4.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending.

   5.RS: Send last call document to IBM's Web Team in Austin. 
         Cancelled. We didn't receive comments.

   6.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 

   7.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 3 (Multi-media) 

         Also: techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 

   8.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 

   9.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1

  10.DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last
         draft when available 

  11.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the

  12.EH: Propose new wording for Checkpoint 2.5 

  13.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchronized alternatives"
         the list. 

         Not done?
         IJ: See 6 December draft for editorial attempt a resolution.
         MR: I would rather see something about "synchronized". Video
             of sign language may be synchronized.

2) Announcements

   1. RESOLVED: Telecon time change after the first of the year to meet
      Thursdays at 1:00 EST (USA) for 90 minutes.

      Action Jon: Please send to adminreq@w3.org.
   2. GL WG is rechartering. 

3) F2F meeting organization (15 minutes max) 

   a) Last call issues. Refer to list and Jon's categorization

   b) IJ: Important issues that you want to see addressed at ftf?
      (None spoken).

   c) No objections to going to Proposed Rec after the holidays.
      GR: We'll avoid the end of year Y2K hype!

   d) Other review comments.
      GR: Earl brought to the fore the issue of 508 decision-making.
          Opposite opinion came up in ATAG review. In ATAG, concerns
          about application of Guidelines to purchasing requirements. 

   e) When building ftf agenda, think about which issues hang 
      on interpretation of specs. Take those to PF.

  Send ftf agenda items to the list.

   f) It looks like we will have phone conferencing at the ftf.

      Anyone here interested in calling in?
      Of those present, Madeleine would.

  Action Ian/Jon - publish an agenda by tomorrow morning.

4) FAQ  (for Recommendation time)
   Refer to Ian's proposal.
   Please think of questions for the FAQ.

5) LC#138: "Synchronized equivalent" v. "Continuous Equivalent"/
     split of 2.5 

   IJ: Refer to how addressed in 6 December draft to use only
       terms "captions" and "auditory descriptions"

         2.7 Allow the user to specify that captions and 
             auditory descriptions be rendered at
             the same time as the associated auditory and 
             visual tracks. 

   MR: Problem with this wording is exclusion of other types
       of synchronized alternatives.

   MR: We might need joint GL/UA meeting to consider EH's proposal

   MR: People haven't done the text-to-speech synchronization yet.

   Resolved: Need to coordinate meeting with GL WG. 
   Action Jon: Organize meeting with GL and AU (asking in particular 
               Geoff Freed, Marja Koivunen, Gregg Vanderheiden, 
               Wendy Chisholm, Eric Hansen). 
               Propose 15 December joint meeting during UAGL call.

   Action Madeleine: Send counter proposal to EH's to the list.

5) LC#171: 3.4: What does natively rendering audio mean?

   DP: Since we moved the definition of "native" to include OS
       features, does that mean we can remove it here?

   DA: I think we meant in previous discussions that if a helper 
       app is doing the rendering, it's not the UA's responsibility.

   IJ: Do any UAs do this natively today?

   GR: If a plug-in manufacturer is reading these guidelines, mentioning
       native support might help.

   MR: Suppose a mainstream browser encounters a sound file. If the
       browser is calling a plug in, the UA should be configurable
       to not call the plug-in. Or is the plug-in monitoring content
       for sound?

   IJ: I agree with MR. I think the UA can control on/off of rendering
       by choosing to "display" or not.
   IJ: For the checkpoints related to volume (audio and speech),
       if you use OS controls, then control of volume through the OS.

   MR: Also, background audio doesn't mention "native" either.

   DP: There seem to be a lot of things that happen where the
       UA calls another. Is there a way to address these globally
       in the document? 

   IJ: Comments on "applicability" welcome.

   DP: Gregory brought up interesting point about "autoplay". Many
       times an applet will let you control volume. Are we controlling
       through this the browser or the UA that content has been handed
       off to? 

   GR: The latter. 

   RESOLVED: (checkpoint numbers from [1]):

     1) UA has the power to turn on/off rendering of audio. This
        applies to 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. 
        Action Ian: Add clarifying Note to rationale
        that UAs can turn off control of content 
        even if it passes content off for rendering.
     2) (Applies to 4.12 and 4.15).
        Remove native from 4.12 and clarify that 
        control of volume is possible through OS if the UA
        using those controls.

     [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991206/

   IJ: Refer to related discussion on "native": 173.

   MR: Seems harsh if the only solution is not accessible.

   DA: But if you are providing a feature, you have to make it

   JG: What if you're in X-Windows? 

   IJ: I don't UAs to reimplement, but if they are using a feature
       to provide a functionality, it's their responsibility.
       Maybe UA designers will ask for more accessibility in the

   JG: So if the Mac doesn't support the use of keyboard to move
       among controls in a dialog box whose problem is it?

   IJ: I think the UA, but I realize that you want to use system

   GR: Take the case of HPR (native support for speech). The install
       is self-voicing. But if you don't have NN installed, speech
       stops before that point. Is that part of this discussion?

   DA: There are third-party tools for the Mac that make it
       accessible. ("ClickIt" by Teletools (?))

   DA: If the underlying OS is not accessible, your browser is not

   DP: But you can make it accessible through your own UI.

   /* DB Joins */

   DB: I think we can live with with Ian's proposal. 

   Conclusion: More discussion on the list. Discuss this at ftf with
               IBM Team.

6) LC#135: Add incremental forward/rewind for audio, video, speech? 

     * No objections to "fast forward" to 4.10 and 4.13.

   MR: I thought "incremental" meant small discrete chunks. I don't
       think variable speed of fast forward and incremental advance
       are the same thing. Analogy: You want the page down key to
       move you in small chunks.

   IJ: Does anyone feel that this is a checkpoint level requirement:
       advance advance/rewind in audio/video by N seconds (P2)
       where N is configurable (P3).

   DP: I think P2 since without this, difficult for people with physical
   MR: I think this is more of a technique. It's also being done

   Action Ian: Send proposal on this to the list.

7) .LC#139: Need clarification of 4.11 (audio playback speed) 

   Refers to 4.11 "Allow the user to control audio playback rate."

   IJ: TV's comment is that speed control for general 
       audio not as important as for speech.

   GR: Hard for streaming. I think TV's point is that acceleration is
       just a convenience. Deceleration is different. More likely
       that people with learning disabilities could use slower audio.
       Also some users with blindness.

   JG: It's possible to slow down streaming.

   MR: Do we also require adjustment for pitch?

   Action Denis: Write up text to explain why deceleration is
                 important for users.

     * 4.11 is Priority 1 (Refer to Denis' action item)
     * Change language of 4.11 to refer only to deceleration of audio.
     * Usually Helper App or OS will be doing the rendering.

8) LC#164: Proposed change to wording of 4.8 in last call UAGL. 

   MR: Note that 4.7 could have captions.


     * Merge 4.7, 4.8, 4.11 and use MR's language but talk only
       about deceleration.
     * Add a note about distortion to that checkpoint.
     * Merge 4.10 and 4.13 and add animation.
     * Clarify that in 4.9, position means graphically.
Adjourned 13:46 ET.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 13:48:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:24 UTC