- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:38:54 -0400
- 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) Absent: Denis Anson Hans Riesebos Harvey Bingham Jim Allan Charles McCathieNevile Regrets: 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0164.html 4.AG: Propose wording that will encompass needs to reposition text equivalents http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0179.html 5.AG: Propose a statement suitable for defining minimum requirements for structured navigation http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0188.html 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 some 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 sense 9.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+ 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, AG: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as possible 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 tomorrow. 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0085.html 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 http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#224 Any objections to proposed 4.15 and 4.16? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0164.html 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? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0108.html 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? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0120.html DP: I think your proposal covers comments from EH on 15: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0194.html Resolved: Adopt proposal with CMN's proposed change. Action IJ: Add edited version to document. 7) PR#278: Definition of "content", etc http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#278 Proposal from IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0132.html IJ: Refer also to EH's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0177.html Proposed: 1) Use EH's definitions. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0177.html 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0154.html 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 http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#277 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. http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#271 Ian's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0135.html Refer to Al's rationale why arbitrary is necessary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0179.html 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" video). 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 well. 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? http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#211 IJ: Refer to proposal to resolve this with additional "applicability" provision. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0104.html 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