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

Raw minutes from 27 April UA Guidelines teleconf

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 15:34:44 -0400
Message-ID: <39089654.4C633680@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
25 Apr 2000

 Jon Gunderson (Chair)
 Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
 Harvey Bingham
 David Poehlman
 Denis Anson
 Mark Novak 
 Al Gilman
 Dick Brown
 Tim Lacy
 Jim Allan
 Kitch Barnicle
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Mickey Quenzer 
 Rich Schwerdtfeger


 Hans Riesebos


 Madeleine Rothberg

Next teleconference: May 2nd at 1:00-2:30 EST
     NOTE: This is different from the time originally sent to the group! 

Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0200.html

1) Review of Action Items

1a) Completed

    2.IJ: Update document based on 4/25/00 telecon resolutions

    3.IJ: Contact MR on importance of arbitrary repostioning in
Checkpoint 4.7
    Email sent to list

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

    8.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+

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

   15.WG: Read EH's proposal related to definition of content
        JG, MN, DP, IJ, DA, KB   

   11.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.

1b) Continued

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

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

    6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8

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

    9.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
          the techniques document.

   10.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8

   12.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10

   13.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized
          slowing down to the list

2) Announcements

    2. Joint UA/WC Telecon moved to May 4th

3) Discussion

    1.PR#278: Definition of "content", etc

     Ian's proposal:

     Resolved: Adopt Eric's proposal + Ian's addendum.
     Action IJ: Add definitions to the document.

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

     /* Ian summarizes discussion of last week */

     AG: The requirement is that you be able to position captions
         w.r.t. the video. (Needs to be clear in checkpoint.)

     TL: I'd like to run this by the IE Team.

     IJ: Note that the primary question is what's the accessibility

     TL: I will send email to the list.

     AG: You could ask Cindy King (at Galudet); she's done work
         in this area.

     Action AG: Write to her and copy me.

    3.PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?

      Refer to JG's email:

      Refer to Al's email:

      AG: I thought next week's teleconf on navigation was for

      JG: More about markup.

      AG: How can you tell the implementor what is structural?
          You want to discuss with WCAG WG what you know from
          the markup.

      IJ: Some things are encoded in HTML spec.
      AG: But some are encoded in layout, not in header tree.

      1) We leave the word "structure" in the checkpoint text
         (Allow the user to navigate according to structure.)

    AG: The "gotcha" I see is when the markup is not helpful
        to you (e.g., current practice). Skip subtree capability
        is assumed by WCAG (e.g., skipping navbars). That's why
        teleconf next week would be useful: talk to WCAG about
        what model in UAs may be expected by authors.

      2) Explain that structure is based on the document object
         model (in the generic sense) but may have more
         semantic information when known from the markup language
         definition, through schemas, etc.
      3) Therefore, the minimal requirement (since the goals are
         orientation and rapid navigation) is to allow navigation
         according to the semantic model known for the markup language,
         paying particular attention to block and grouping mechanisms,
         and having a subtree skip and/or hide functionality.

    AG: I'm not happy with this proposal. You should state more of
        what the user needs: 
             1) Decompose the page into principle parts
             2) Be able to get to the beginning of any part (quickly).

    MN: That's what the "e.g." in the current 7.6 says to me.
    IJ: Two pieces:

       a) Where does the structure come from?
          - Semantic model (structure, schemas, specifications)
          - Repair of poorly constructed page is extra-credit.
       b) What set of functionalities of navigation?

   AG: I don't think that we should be espousing theories about
       what the UA should provide if why don't apply to actual
       content in the world. We need evidence that something
       is effective, not only readily achievable. The specs on 
       whole are not effective in this regard (point "a" from Ian).
       I think you can say some minimum things from known structures
       (e.g., headers). 
   AG: I think it's easier to come up with performance requirements
       (e.g., lists no lnoger than five) rather than rules for
       extracting the navigation tree from markup.

   AG: I agree with statements like "If there are headings, you
       should include them."

   IJ: Are you saying we can't rely on the markup?

   AG: No. If you just use HTML, you don't get a usable product.
      You have people using tables and frames to implement the
      same functional object. People have N ways of building a 
      header bar. The specs don't tell you how to do this.
   AG: You have evidence of user agents doing good things in
       structured navigation, but you have not criteria for
       drawing the line.

   JG: Are you suggesting that we leave open the minimal 

   AG: Almost: include what is necessary, but indicate that
       it's not sufficient. More research would be necessary
       to know what's a minimum requirement for a markup language.

   KG: I think we can make the argument about a lot of checkpoints.

   DA: Then we'll continue to get the complaint that people don't
       know when they conform.

   JG: Does the configuration checkpoint help us?

   AG: It helps me. I think you have to consider 7.6, 7.7,
       and 8.6 (orientation) together.

   AG: The user agent's view has to have structure, so that
       the user can form a navigation model. Yes, the 
       markup specs and author's intent help infer structure.

   IJ: In my mind, the author provides a "view" and the user
       agent allows the user to handle this view flexibly.

   AG: The requirement for structured navigation to provide
       a structure that the user can move through. How this relates
       to what's provided in the format is part of the implementation.
       It's not the basic requirement. The user needs to break the
       problem down into parts. And to be able to navigate to them.
       The mission statement is missing.

   IJ: I hear Al saying that "chunk" navigation is the requirement.
       We subsumed this under "structured navigation" since we
       knew structure generically (doc tree). This checkpoint 
       subsumed a number of other checkpoints (e.g., table cell
       navigation), which are in techniques.

   /* Charles drops out */

   a) Chunk navigation is not the only piece we need to address.
      But it's a good example of where our problems come from.
   b) In PF, we're working on XML (DTD) guidelines. So that users
      can break down content into component parts.

   AG: We want this guideline to drive the PF dialogues. I need
       this to state the functional requirement for the user.

   IJ: "Navigate efficiently to significant components of content."

   RS: What about "contextual navigation"?

   AG: "Contextual navigation" is a superclass of "structured
   GR: Need to provide the ability to expand and contract

   GR: Issues of navigation and others are coming to light in
       the effort to generalize the content guidelines.

   Action AG: Write comments based on current techniques as
   fodder for the WCAG/UA joint teleconf on 4 May.

   Action JG: Write a proposal / clarification about 7.6 to the 
              list (to clarify "navigate" and "structure").

   /* Discussion of timing issues: WWW9, then AC meeting,
      then Ian vacation, then Jon unavailable in June, 
      then summer slowdown, ... */

   4.PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1

    Refer to JG summary:
    AG: I concur with summary sent by JG.
    DA: Problem if I need to access the summary and all I have
       is a source view, that doesn't cut it. You have to have
       access to equivalents in the same context.
    IJ: Refer to my proposal that says this:
    DA: But it's not just alternative equivalents that need to
        be available in the same view. Attributes, too.
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 15:35:05 UTC

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