- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:43:19 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
6 Apr 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Charles McCathieNevile
Kitch Barnicle
Gregory Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Denis Anson
Tim Lacy
Jim Allan
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Harvey Bingham
Mark Novak
Next teleconference: 13 April
Next face-to-face: 10-11 April
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0024.html
1) Announcements
1. FTF for Evaluation and Repair Tools working group in Amsterdam
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2000/05/agenda
2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information
Technology
Accessibility Standards by the United States
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Comments will be accepted until May 30th
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/overview.htm
JG: If you have comments, consider drafting comments or
coordinate with the W3C Team.
2) Review of Action items
1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for
developers. (No deadline.)
Status: Not done.
2.CMN: Send a proposal to the list related to a note for
Checkpoint 2.1 clarifying UI verses API access
Done.
3.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
Status: Not done.
4.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
TL: I haven't looked at them lately. I'll try to review before
the meeting.
5.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11
Status: Have read through them, will send comments to the list.
6.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2
Status: Will send editorial comments to the list
7.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio
examples in the techniques document.
Status: Looking for software that works. I've made
some requests for leads but haven't found
anything yet. I may try to work on something
in Princeton.
HB: Get samples of digital talking book work at Princeton.
8.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
Status: Not done.
9.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10
Status: Not done. I have a hard time finding things.
3) Proposed Rec update.
IJ: Still getting reviews. No substantial comments yet.
4) Face-to-face meeting information.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/ua-meeting-rfbd.html
JG: 10 people have registered.
JG: We'll have a bridge for the meeting. Tim, Mark, Denis,
Jim Allan have requested a telephone connection.
KB: I'll sit in with Mark.
DP: I want to call as well.
IJ: That means the entire bridge will be full. There are
only six slots and the WG will need one.
IJ: The bridge will be available from 10am ET to 5pm ET Monday and
for the whole meeting on Tuesday. The number to call
(the "Mystic" bridge) is +1-617-252-1859.
/* Discussion of speaker quality */
DB: If there's a problem, Microsoft will be willing to
rent necessary equipment.
JG: Agenda items?
IJ: From the PR, one comment - people want us to
track support for the Guidelines. Furthermore, the
WCAG WG would like the UA WG to take over support
for the UA Support page.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
JG: Also, talk about long-term schedule, confs and meetings
we might attend/hold.
Other ideas:
- Specialized guidelines for assistive technologies.
JG: Please send agenda items to the list.
DA: When you talk about conformance guidelines for AT, there's
a group hosted in part by the US Census bureau working
on a standard interface for ATs.
GR: There was a guy from the US Census at the WAI IG meeting.
Action DA: Look for name of this organization and send to list.
IJ: Our charter expires at the end of April.
/* IJ explains charter renewal process */
IJ: Send charter ideas to the list. (Consider this
a call for charter ideas.)
IJ: Development of a requirements document. Look at
what WCAG is doing for its requirements document.
JG: So I've got:
- rechartering
- at guidelines
- improved techniques document
- reqs document
- education and outreach
- future meetings
5) New info for implementation report?
DA: I'll try for Mac.
GR: I intend to go through the checkpoints with
Netscape 6. I've already sent problems to the
list about installation:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0036.html
GR: I don't think that I will have a full review done
before WWW9.
DP: Please note that this is a pre-release.
IJ: The implementation report is not urgent to go to REC. We
should keep it up to date, but not urgent to do so now.
6) Issue PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
Refer to Ian's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0550.html
IJ: JG has made a point that making regular content available is
not an accessibility issue: everyone suffers, not just users
with disabilities.
IJ: So: all alternatives that can be recognized by the UA must
be available through the UI.
DA: If you render content natively, you must render it accessibly.
TL: Another problem with source view: for large documents, doesn't
show you all content.
JG: The critical piece of 2.1 is that alt equivalents be available
through the UI. I don't think anything else would be lost.
Resolved:
- Add a note to 2.1 that a source view, while useful, does not
meet the requirements of 2.1.
- It does not satisfy 8.6 ("outline view") either. In fact, the
outline view is supposed to reduce signal-to-noise ratio, which
is increased by a source view.
(Ian reminds himself for the record
that the content/ui division in G1 needs
to be fixed. Action Ian: Fix this.)
Topic : Definition of content.
IJ: "Source view" is for viewing the document source.
I think that we need a definition of "document source".
(Refer to Note at W3C for Note about Terminology
for the Web: the source is what you get as a result of
a request). It's what the client gets.
IJ: In DOM1, content generated by style sheets not in tree.
This may change in DOM 3.
JG: MS's implementation of the DOM today gives this information...
TL: It's even more complicated than source/dom/rendered: you have
server-side scripts that may or may not have an effect on the
source.
TL: What comes down the wire is "the source".
Proposed:
- Define these erms:
* Document Source
* Document Object
* Rendered Content
* What is content?
Action IJ: Propose three terms to the list.
Topic : Scope of 2.1.
IJ: How do you know something is an alternative equivalent?
What is lost if the scope is reduced to equivalent
alternatives? I haven't been able to come up with
anything other than "content" (primary or
alternative).
GR: In ATAG, we talked about "Content" (big "C") v. "content"
(small "c").
IJ: If you define "content" to be what's meant for humans,
then checkpoint 2.1 stays the same: it's what's meant
for humans (primary or alternative content).
CMN: I don't like this. At the meeting, I thought we decided
we would not require that everything that is human readable
be available through the UI.
IJ: Why is this an accessibility issue? If the information is
not meant for anyone, why does it need to be available for
accessibility?
GR: It's an authoring issue.
IJ: How do you know what will be useful to users if it's
not specified as being useful to humans? E.g., some
URIs may be useful and others not, but you're not
supposed to rely on the text of a URI to get information...
JG: How many people think that what CMN is talking about was
intended by 2.1 as written in the Proposed Rec? (Source
information is important, not just content meant to be
rendered, since it could provide access).
CMN: Three weeks ago the WG rejected the idea of making explicit
what needed to be rendered through the UI.
JG: I don't think the WG understood the implications of 2.1
when it was discussed. When Phill asked about a source view,
I woke up because I didn't think that 2.1 was about
document source.
CMN: I have no disagreement that alt content needs to be
available through the UI and that for that content, the
source view was not satisfactory.
CMN: The only content that must be available through the
user interface is what is meant for humans.
IJ: Summary of what I've understood:
- Consensus that all information meant for humans
be available through the UI.
- Current 2.1 does not require that.
- CMN considers that information meant for machines
can make information more accessible.
- UA Guidelines does not require a source view.
JG: Do people think we need a checkpoint that states that
alternative content must be available through the UI?
Consensus: It must be available.
IJ: I just want to note that the above consensus may cause
a change to the spec.
DP: If you don't render audio but there is an equivalent,
you need to render it.
JG: If you don't do it for anyone, do you have to
do it for users with a disability?
IJ, GR, DP: Yes.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 15:43:26 UTC