W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Raw minutes from 25 April UA Guidelines WG teleconference.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3905F44E.5524E6A@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
25 Apr 2000

 Ian Jacobs (Chair/Scribe)
 David Poehlman
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Mark Novak
 Mickey Quenzer 
 Kitch Barnicle
 Rich Schwerdtfeger (after 45 mins)
 Mark Novak (briefly)

 Denis Anson
 Hans Riesebos
 Harvey Bingham
 Jim Allan
 Charles McCathieNevile


 Jon Gunderson
 Madeleine Rothberg

Next teleconference: 27 April

Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0190.html

1) Review of Action Items

1a) Completed

    2.IJ: Propose new 4.15 and 4.16 to list

    4.AG: Propose wording that will encompass needs to reposition text 

    5.AG: Propose a statement suitable for defining minimum requirements 
          for structured navigation

1b) Continued

    1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. 
(No deadline.)

    3.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus 
           navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1.

    6.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by
          from the US Census Bureau

    7.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8

    8.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make

    9.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+

   10.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
          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
          slowing down to the list

   15.RS, AG: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as
              DOM 3 requirement.

2) Announcements

    1.Special joint UA/WC telecon on markup for navigation
      likely to be postponed until 4 May. Will confirm postponement

    2. DP: "Souvenir" is in beta production (not available
       publicly). Souvenir is a multimedia user
       agent / editor (developed by one guy, I think). 
       Allows you to segment a presentation,
       annotate it. Has keyboard navigation, structured 
       much like a standard Windows application.

3) Any objections to incorporating proposal about
     conformance with Hans Riesebos comments integrated?

     IJ proposal:

   KB: Say something like "even if not used in conjunction with
       AT, will be more accessible. In some cases, accessibility
       "completed" by use of an AT.

   Resolved: Add to document with proposed edit.
   Action IJ: Add edited version to document.

4) PR#224: Checkpoint 4.16: Minimal conformance requirement unclear
 Any objections to proposed 4.15 and 4.16?

 GR: The default should be to prompt the user for a configuration
     the first time.

 KB: Is this in set up or during use?

 GR: I think that's an implementation detail.

 GR: For 4.16, add a cross-ref to Guideline on configuration.

 /* IJ cites emacs as a case when you can have duplicate
    views on a buffer. */

 MQ: What about view source?

 IJ: I don't think that that should be a requirement, even though
    it's probably useful.

 DP: JFW link view shows you links around where the focus is.

 Resolved: Adopt proposal
 Action IJ:
  1) Incorporate proposal
  2) Add an example to the techniques document (e.g.,
     you open a new view in order to navigate around
     to a new place without losing your place in the
     original view).

5) Proposed note after checkpoint 8.1:
 Any objections to proposed note?

 GR: s/and ensuring/and by ensuring/

 Resolved: Adopt proposal with proposed edit.
 Action IJ: Add edited version to document.

6) Proposed 1.5:

 Any objections to proposed rewording with CMN's comments integrated?

 DP: I think your proposal covers comments from EH on 15:

 Resolved: Adopt proposal with CMN's proposed change.
 Action IJ: Add edited version to document.

7) PR#278: Definition of "content", etc

   Proposal from IJ:

   IJ: Refer also to EH's comments

   1) Use EH's definitions.
   2) Add a statement that "content" is used in this document
      to mean data, and not information (Refer to   
      comments from Denis and Al (refer to Al's email). The editors
      would have to double-check usage.

   No one has read the proposals, so issue is skipped.
   Action WG: Read EH's proposal.

8) PR#277: Use DOM level 1 , if DOM level 2 recommendation is not ready 
           in time
   IJ: Some developments in DOM WG. They may go to DOM 2 quickly
       and we should have more information next week. I propose that
       we basically make our decision whether to stay at DOM 2
       or move to DOM 1 at next week's teleconf.

   IJ: I note that the Director has said that it's ok for us
       to go to to Rec with DOM 2 a Proposed Rec.

   IJ: Do we have consensus that, if necessary, we will
       move to DOM 1 (which means edits to 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 and
       deleting 5.4)?
   WG: No objections to going to DOM 1 to get us to Rec.
   We will not decide to change to DOM 1 until after hearing
   again from the DOM WG what their schedule will be.

9) PR#271: Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning 
           not a requirement.

   Ian's proposal:
   Refer to Al's rationale why arbitrary is necessary:

   IJ: Basically, you should allow at least movement within the
       range that the author can specify. If the author can't
       position stuff, then what's required? There may be technologies
       where you can't reposition (e.g., text is "burned into"

   KB: I agree with Al's statement, but wouldn't go so far 
       as to require arbitrary positioning.

   RS: I think that arbitrary position will not solve all of the
       problems that Al discusses. At some point, with magnification,
       you should have speech output at the same time, so positioning
       is irrelevant.

   DP: But then you are in the realm of the AT. This is a checkpoint
       for graphical user agents. Two issues: (1) ability to move in or
       out of the way (2) CD issues - you could be confused if the
       information is at the bottom or top.

   RS: I'm concerned about how many P1s we have.

   GR: I don't think we should politicize the priorities. 

   IJ: Let's not go there. Please consider three cases:
     1) Author can position arbitrarily. So user should be able to, as 
     2) Content is fused, so UA not required to separate them.
     3) Content is not fused, but author can't position either.
   IJ: I think we're most concerned with case three here: what 
       should the user agent be required to do?

   RS: If you've got text in the source, you've got to display it
       anyway (checkpoint 2.1). I would like to defer to Madeleine.

   RS: Technically speaking, I don't see where the big hit on this
       checkpoint is : you have to render it anyway. 

   RS: Magnifiers generally magnify around the focus. Presumably this
       piece of text would not have focus. In this case, the user
       would have to (at this magnification level) move the text into
       view. While the video is playing, even if you reposition,
       how would anyone be able to use the captions? My gut feeling,
       having worked on software like this, at that magnification
       level, it would be very difficult to keep up with 
       streaming video content and moving text. I think the user will
       need auditory support.

   KB: Not just magnification. If I've lost some field of vision, I
       may need to be able to position the text (arbitrarily) to
       make use of my peripheral vision.

   RS: I can see your point for that one.
   KB: I can imaging a video where you would want to obscure part
       of the video because you need access to something else. So
       obscuring is not always a problem and may be useful.

   DP: What we are after in this checkpoint, is making the captions
       accessible. It doesn't matter that the video is occluded since
       the focus of this checkpoint is to make the text viewable.

   RS: I will abide by what Madeleine recommends.

   Action IJ: Write email asking for input from Madeleine on what
    the priority should be.

10) PR#211: Do we need to say "alt equivs that have been marked up as 
           such" in 2.1 and 2.5?

   IJ: Refer to proposal to resolve this with additional
   "applicability" provision.

   Resolved: Adopt proposal.
   Action IJ: Incorporate text.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 15:39:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:26 UTC