- From: Kitch Barnicle <barnicle@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:46:16 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hans
Dick
Al
Jon
Harvey
Kitch
Jim
Gregory
Ian
Regrets
Charles
Mickey
Rich
Notes by Kitch (so not as good as Ian)
Open Actions were reviewed
DB: reviewed techniques for 3,4. and 11. and sent to list
New Action
AL : Will bring notification to PF group (take over action previously
assigned to RS)
Announcements
1. A week from today (April 27th, 4:00 Eastern there will be special
joint GL UA call related to markup for navigation - to develop consensus on
techniques for marking up links for navigation . Hopefully results will be
clear guidelines for inclusion in the techniques UA and GL (Wendy has
sent proposal re: using MAP for navigation bars).
2. If UA group does not get through open issue there will be an extra
telecon on the 25th
Discussion
1.PR#277: Use DOM level 1 , if DOM level 2 recommendation not ready in time
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#277
2.PR#273: Checkpoint 10.9: Why graphical controls only?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#277
JG: This is a priority 3. Currently the doc only talks about graphical
controls.
Reviewing: Ian's proposal
What would be the minimal requirement to satisfy?
JG: Jon proposed "allow user
GR: Could we change the graphic . For example, use the tool tip to replace
the graphic.
AL: would like to have option to order things listed in a menu,
particularly useful when accessing auditorially (like phone menus)
DB: sounds like it is going beyond rearranging graphics
JG: Original purpose was for individuals with small range of motion, could
cluster controls in a area together. During review, other reasons for
rearranging elements were brought up, for example rearranging menu items
HR: Do we consider the menu to be a control?
JA: Does that include min, max...we could end up rearranging whole screen?
JG: min requirement may just be changing the position or number
AL: Yes, I wording does answer the reviewers comments. The re-wording is ok.
Proposed Wording For graphical user interfaces, allow the user to configure
the arrangement of user interface controls.
Resolved: Accept IJ's rewording of Tuesday 4/18/00
JG; Allow the user to change the number, position and function of the
buttons on available tool bars??
DB: does that mean change the function of a button
AL; Allow the user to change the number, position and selection of the
buttons on available tool bars??
DB: we don't want to require a tool bar
Allow the user to change which functions and the positions of the functions
on available tool bars
Note to Ian - We want wording to the effect - allow user to choose which
function/buttons show up where on the toolbar.
SHOULD MENUS BE INCLUDED
Al; Users of speech won't know about hot keys until they get to in a
sequential manner.
JG: May also be an issue for individuals with the cognitive disabilities
JG: seems like order and number could be important for individuals who are
blind and who cognitive disabilities
JG: We need to specify a minimum requirements so everyone doesn't interpret
this differently
JG: What about - Allow the user to change the order and remove and add of
items in pull down menus.
KB: I would want a restore feature if we are going to allow people to
remove menu items.
JG Should we add - Also user to restore default configuration.
GR: Would restoring defaults be covered in our profile checkpoint.
JG: Allow the user to restore default the menu and toolbar settings (cross
reference checkpoint 10.7)
DB: does this mean default for menus and toolbars together or just one menu
AL: point of cross reference - if there is a profile mechanism user should
be able to restore to factory defaults - Users would need restore
application defaults
Summary - 3 requirements
1. Allow the user to change which functions and the positions of the
functions on available tool bars Note to Ian - We want wording to the
effect - allow user to choose which function/buttons show up where on the
toolbar.
2. Allow the user to change the order and remove and add of items in pull
down menus.
3. Allow the user to restore default the menu and toolbar settings (cross
reference checkpoint 10.7)
3.PR#271: Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning
not a requirement.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#271
JG: At f2f - key issues 1) alt equiv is not obscured , 2) video/image can
be viewed simultaneously with the transcript
Notes from Ian UA doesn't have to allow for configuring - if information is
not obscured
AL: This is p1 because of the need to support simultaneously magnification
and captions. Not intent to always require arbitrary positioning, but some
configuration capability that makes simul mag and captions.
AL: Wording on not obscuring not the best way to answer the commenter's
questions - want to make it clear - it is not arbitrary control.
JG: Good if we can express in functional needs, that is where obscure
wording is helpful
AL: User has to have the choice - content may need to obscure other content
- user should have reasonable control, if captions get so big they it has
to blot out video..want to leave control in hands of user - whether need to
obscure or not
JG:
AL: minimum implementation under magnification - need to be able to place
captions
Action:
AL: Al will post to the list a discussion of this topic to show that we
still need to work on wording
JG:
1)this is priority 1
2) we do need to allow user to choose whether info is obscured or not
3) functional requirements - how much configuration is needed.
4.PR#260: Guideline 1 checkpoint language unclear.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#260
Review Ian's proposed new language
<new>
1.1 Ensure that every functionality available through the user interface
is available through every input API implemented by the user agent.
[Priority 1]
Note. This checkpoint does not require developers to
implement all operating system input APIs, only to make
the software accessible through those they do implement. The
device-independence required by this checkpoint applies
to the functionalities described by the other checkpoints
in this document (e.g., installation, documentation, user agent
user interface configuration, etc.). This checkpoint does not
require developers to reimplement the input methods associated
with the keyboard, pointing device, voice, and other device
APIs For example, developers are not required to implement
text input through a mouse API.
<new>
<NEW>
Note. Developers should use APIs available at a higher level of
abstraction than device APIs, provided that, in turn, these
higher level APIs make use of the standard device APIs for
the operating system.
</NEW>
<NEW>
1.4 Implement the standard keyboard API of the operating system and
ensure that every functionality available through the user interface
is available through this API. [Priority 1]
Note. This checkpoint always applies on systems with a
standard keyboard API. This checkpoint is an important
special case of checkpoint 1.1. Refer also to checkpoint
10.8.
</NEW>
JG: I think we are clear that developers don't need to generate text
through a mouse.
JG It is clear that if you implement voice input you should do it
accessibly. Developers would probably want to make the whole thing voice
accessible.
AL: May run into this problem (voice control not working) during
installation. What if installation doesn't support voice input.
JG: Gregory would installation be considered a separate program.
GR: I would consider installation part and partial of product.
Ian joined (yeah!)
IJ: There could be a boot strap problem. If you have to install voice
component it could be a problem. If OS doesn't support voice, how do you
install UA with voice.
GR: Other example, screen reader installation is self voicing - installs a
temporary module until actual program gets installed
JG: Let's move this to the list
IJ: any objections to incorporating.
Resolved: adopt Ian's proposal with incorporation of comments from the list.
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#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233
JG: Related to configure UA to navigate structure. Current min reqs
proposal for 7.6 - says 1) allow user to sequentially navigate current
through rendering in the viewport human recognizable.....for example,
header...... 2) if no structural defined use programmatic
structure.... (see draft requirements doc)
IJ: Sounds like minimum is to use document object.
The DOM is limited to XML and HTML. Document objects can include scripts or
other
Document Object - user agent's representation........ see Ian's proposed
definition
IJ: not clear in generic sense what is actually in the document object...
the W3C DOM is specific, document object not
IJ: Structure - What it means is document object. It has structure, so
minimal navigation.
JG: For example in HTML, would have a command that would allow you to
highlight each element in the document tree.
JG: this would allow users to identify an element on the screen and know
what that "chunk" represents. But some people have pointed out that there
are human understandable things (e.g. heading level 2 should be under level
2 etc)
IJ: For a lot of these checkpoints it is difficult to specify minimal
requirements. Here is one where absolute min. req is navigation of
everything in document object in a particular viewport. We expect more and
when there are conventions like for HTML, we expect more. We can say min
is access to every element in the tree and we can add suggestions for how
to do it better.
IJ: If we express what we are thinking - structured navigation - does that
help developers.
JG: we want to give people more guidance the we currently are on how to
satisfy this checkpoint. The min. should be to provide the capabilities for
more complex navigation in the future. This may also be device specific.
IJ: When we say navigate - what are the navigation functions, so far we
have forward serial navigation. We haven't talked about going up the tree
and across siblings.
AL: Al will take an action to post to the list about structured navigation
HR. Does this DOM tree related to rendered content
IJ: no???
JG: just because something is in w3c DOM tree doesn't mean it is for human
understanding. Just because you are navigating tree doesn't mean it is
human understandable. For real structured navigation, what better
navigation. Actually want to go a step beyond the DOM. More beneficial once
you can configure.
JG: Current minimum is navigating the document tree.
IJ: We do want to clarify the "more" we are looking for in this checkpoint.
We decided to stay more general and flexible but we have had a bunch of
ideas for navigating (in techniques).
JG: not resolved until we hear from AL
IJ: can we take 2 minutes to hear from Gregory on DOm
GR: concern - we decided to make a forward looking document. Stepping back
is more for ER group.
There is a dependency between UA and PF to ensure that PF is monitoring DOM
work and playing a greater role in ensuring DOM 2 addresses our concerns.
IJ: I think we chose to go with DOM2 because we liked what it had to offer.
Dropping to DOM1 is more a strategic decision to get a document out. Few
documents are XML. I encourage us to drop to DOM1 and get the UA document
out the door. For CSS, I could part with it in order to get this document
out and in the next round adopt CSS and events that suit us.
IJ: Still have the option to build in language that we "move up" to DOM2
some time after it is out.
JG
1. wait for DOM 2 to come out (4-6 months)
2) go back to DOM1 - already out, we can control our timing to
recommendation, could incorporate DOM2 when desired
3) add contingency language - adopt DOM2 when available (we think we know
what we will get)
Harvey- we'll have to go through another 3 months after DOM2 is out
IJ: Much content does not use namespace today. We should get document out now.
7.PR#211: Do we need to say "alt equivs that have been marked up as
such" in 2.1 and 2.5?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#211
8.PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
Open Action Items
1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers.
(No deadline.)
2.IJ: Propose split to the list. Identify why and issue of priority.
3.IJ: Propose new 4.15 and 4.16 to list
4.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1.
5.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by some
from the US Census Bureau
6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
7.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make sense
8.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
9.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11
10.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples in
the techniques document.
11.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
12.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.
13.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10
14.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized audio/video
slowing down to the list
15.RS: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible DOM
3 requirement.
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 Thursday, 20 April 2000 15:46:18 UTC