- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:41:18 -0500
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
OK. I will add it to the agenda. Jon At 12:22 PM 4/18/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: >Jon, > >Please add to the agenda an item about the UA Guidelines dependency >on DOM Level 2. The DOM Working Group has been held up in their process >of different interpretations of the XML namespaces Recommendation [1] >by various XML Working Groups. Since it might be a while before DOM >Level 2 advances to Proposed Recommendation, we might want to change >our DOM requirements to DOM 1 so that we can move forward. Please >note that if we make this change (which is significant, even if it's >motived by a process issue, not a consensus issue), we may not be >able to move directly to Recommendation. This would be the subject >of the agenda item. > >Thank you, > > - Ian > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names > > >Jon Gunderson wrote: > > > > WAI UA Telecon for April 19th, 2000 > > \ > > Chair: Jon Gunderson > > Date: Wednesday, April 19th > > Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA > > Call-in:Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038 > > > > Agenda > > > > Review Action Items (see details at end of message) > > > > Announcements > > > > 1.April 27th, WCAG Telecon will be discussing markup to provide > > navigation information > > to user agents > > > > 2.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information Technology > > Accessibility > > Standardsby 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 > > > > Discussion > > > > 1.Update on proposed recommendation process > > > > 2.Issue #PR207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1 > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207 > > > > Notes: > > > > A. Consensus on access to all human readible content through the > > user interface > > > > B. Consensus on access to all alternative equivalents through > > the user interface > > > > C. Currently the group has identified the primary use for access > > to machine readible > > content through the user interface is for repair purposes. The > > following items > > summarize the chairs view of the issue: > > C.1 We have previously removed other repair related > > checkpoints (linearization > > of tables, etc..). The only one left is Checkpoint 2.3. > > C.2 Examples sited affect people with disabilities the same > > as people without > > disabilities. Markup that does not conform to WCAG. > > C.3 Examples sited require an expert knowledge of markup for > > repair (small > > number of people with skill and motivation) > > C.4 Examples sited do not guarantee access to content only > > potential > > C.5 This would be a new requirement and may require stepping > > back to a > > previous stage in the recommendation process > > > > 3.PR#224: Checkpoint 4.16: Minimal conformance requirement unclear > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#224 > > > > 4.PR#244: Checkpoint 4.5: Change to P2 since no reference > implementation. > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#244 > > > > 5.PR#257: Difficult to know when a UA has conformed. > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#257 > > > > 6.PR#262: Checkpoint 5.9: Change Priority since non-standard approaches > > may be > > better. > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#262 > > > > 7.PR#264: Checkpoint 3.9: Raise priority since may cause CD problems. > > http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#264 > > > > Open Action Items > > > > 1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. > > (No deadline.) > > > > 2.IJ: Propose three terms to the list: Document Source, Document Object > > and Rendered > > Content > > > > 3.IJ: The content/ui division in G1 needs to be fixed > > > > 4.IJ: Resolutions from FTF meeting > > > > 5.IJ: Adopt new wording of proposal for checkpoint 9.2 > > > > 6.IJ: Propose split to the list. Identify why and issue of priority. > > > > 7.CMN: Find out from I18N how to generalize the accessibility provided > > by sans-serif > > fonts. > > > > 8.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus > > navigation would suffice > > for Checkpoint 8.1. > > > > 9.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some > > from the US > > Census Bureau > > > > 10.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8 > > > > 11.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ > > > > 12.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11 > > > > 13.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2 > > > > 14.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in > > the techniques > > document. > > > > 15.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8 > > > > 16.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list. > > > > 17.JG: Write email to the list asking for information about which user > > groups require the > > ability to slow down presentations othewise access it impossible. > > > > 18.JG: Take conformance grandulatity issue to the WAI CG. > > > > 19.JG: Identify the minimal requirement for each checkpoint. > > > > 20.HB: Take scoping issue of the current guidelines to the EO > working group > > > > 21.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10 > > > > 22.RS: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible DOM > > 3 requirement. > >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 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 Tuesday, 18 April 2000 14:41:21 UTC