- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:21:27 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
2 May 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Gregory Rosmaita
Denis Anson
Mark Novak
Jim Allan
Al Gilman
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Rich Schwerdtfeger (late)
Eric Hansen (late)
Absent:
Tim Lacy
Charles McCathieNevile
Mickey Quenzer
Hans Riesebos
Madeleine Rothberg
Regrets:
Dick Brown (today and 4 May)
Next teleconference: May 4 at 2pm ET.
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0248.html
1) Review of Action Items
1a) Completed
6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0266.html
10.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.7
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0239.html
12.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 9
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0203.html
13.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized
audio/video
slowing down to the list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0065.html
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.
7.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make
sense
DA: Pending.
9.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
in
the techniques document.
10.GR: Review techniques for Section 3.8
12.MQ: Review techniques for Guideline 10
2) Announcements
1.Joint UA/WC Telecon on Thursday, May 4th from 4:00 to 5:00 PM EST
USA
on the Longfellow bridge +1-617-252-1038.
2. DA tells us that IE5 supports longdesc.
3. Some people will be in Amsterdam next week at ER
face-to-face.
3) PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
Refer to proposals:
JG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0245.html
JG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0264.html
AG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html
GR: Refer to PF minutes (Member-only, sorry).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2000AprJun/0146.html
GR: Discussion of property sheets.
JG: Scroll bars are important.
IJ: This is in the definition of "viewport". I don't think this
needs to be a UA Guidelines requirement since it affects
all users.
Resolved: No need to include a "scrollbar note" since
it's in the definition of viewport.
Proposed: One goal of 2.1 is to make equivalent alternatives
readily available in the same view.
AG: Does this cause us to exceed the scope of Guideline 2?
The proper composition of views gets into presentation,
whereas G2 is just about exposure (you have to get to
it).
IJ: I see no problem with moving it to another checkpoint.
AG: You might want to organize the objective of
"staying close to the author's view" in another checkpoint.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html
/* Discussion of view as a "take on the data" (e.g., table of
contents view) */
AG: The term "view" in the database community means something
different: checklist of what's presented.
Resolved:
Split 2.1 into:
1) Ensure that the user has access to all content.
2) Make equivalent alternatives readily available
in the same view.
IJ: 'The term view is used in this document to describe the
purpose of a particular rendering (e.g., "outline view", "table
of contents view", "links view").'
AG: The user agent must support permutations of an object
('equivalents') within the same view.
AG: I think the objectives are valid, but may need to
go somewhere outside of G2.
Proposed: Provide synchronized views of content.
(In the sense of coordinated but different views
of the same content.)
JG: Should this be a checkpoint to make it easier to
find information in views? Or just a technique?
IJ:
1) If you have synchronized views, you are supposing at
least two views. What are those views?
MN: Most browsers already provide at least one view.
GR: It's important that synchronization is important if you
provide an outline view.
GR: Issue of different levels of detail in views and how
those are coordinated.
JG: Both Amaya and Jaws offer synchronized views.
JG: Are synchronized views important for accessibility?
GR: Yes.
DA: Yes, but P2.
DP: Yes, at least P2. E.g., from a link list, you need
to be able to find out where the link occurs on the page.
MN: I can see accessibility issues, but not sure this
requirement part of G2.
JG: Maybe part of the orientation guideline.
KB: Without having views synchronized, the value of the
additional view might be substantially lowered.
IJ: I think this a new requirement and would pretty
much guarantee that we will have to go back to last call.
KB: (to GR) What additional functionality would this requirement
offer that's not covered in other checkpoints?
GR: What's missing is that there's no explicit requirement that
alternative views be synchronized with an original view.
I think it's also related to point of regard.
IJ: We also need to consider the impact of how focus is
controlled among synchronized views.
JG: How crucial is this requirement for UAAG 1.0? Can it wait?
/* IJ forwards that a last call means we might get to Rec
at the beginning of September */
Resolved:
- Add a checkpoint to G8
requiring synchronized views when more than one.
- Review this change alongside other changes to the document.
- Evaluate later whether this is the make-or-break checkpoint
for advancing quickly; decide then whether to keep it.
JG: We might also consider highlighting this as part of 8.6,
then making a more general requirement in another version.
Proposed: Add access to only the attributes of a selected
element.
JG: I withdraw this proposal since I've not heard much support
for it.
AG: I think this is a useful technique, though.
Action IJ: Add this as a technique.
IJ: By the way, how have we resolved the original question
about a source view?
AG: Move all discussion of source view and property inspection to
techniques discussion in the guidelines document.
This section should say the following things:
- Property inspection is expected to be significantly more
usable than source view for many properties.
- Source view may be the most usable readily-achievable view
for some content such as embedded fragments of style and
script languages.
(quoted from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0269.html)
JG: A source view is part of a solution, but is not a solution
in itself.
Resolved: A source view is part of a solution for providing
access to content, but is not a sufficient solution
on its own.
IJ: The question from the start, to me, was
"how much content has to be made available through the
primary view"? How have we answered that?
IJ: I've heard us answer "we draw the line at alt content"
in the primary view. And the rest of the content
is available through the sum of all views.
AG: Yes.
Action IJ: Update the document with these resolutions.
4) PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233
AG: I propose that in techniques we move away from
headers as containers and towards headers as good
starting points. The guideline should be to use
what the author gave you as structural clues (even
in preference over what the spec says). I think that
the DOM as the basis of doc structure is insufficient
(due to real-world "mis"-usage). Use what the
author gave you.
AG: You can even reasonably guess that headers used to
change font sizes are still important starting point.
AG: User agents should be encouraged to provide navigation
among starting points marked up by the user. Headers
or structuring elements such as forms and tables.
E.g., MAP with a "title" for navbars.
IJ: What's the minimal requirement if we ask user agents
to do what is not defined in the spec?
AG: I'm not suggesting that we should require UAs to
follow heuristics. Only to accept that this document
will not meet all requirements, and that we have to
address repair strategies and possibly consider more
in later versions.
AG: However, you can do a lot to call out important
elements/structures in the techniques document. The
HTML spec may not go far enough to highlight what's important
for structured navigation.
DP: I think Phill has said that you have to remain close
to what the markup language spec says. I think we are
saying "If a document conforms to WCAG, please render
it appropriately."
IJ Summarizing:
- Minimal requirement is navigation of document structure.
(elements). However, you need to add filtering before
its useful.
- This will not solve all accessibility problems today due
to how markup is used in practice that doesn't conform
to specs.
- We should not try to solve all these problems in this
version.
AG: Minimal requirement is navigation of document structure.
(elements). However, you need to add filtering before
its useful.
IJ: What about the proposal from last week?
"Allow the user to navigate efficiently to
significant parts of content."?
AG: Yes, I like the idea of including something about
some of the goals.
AG: Hitting the high spots is only part of structured
navigation. Tables is an exception. But in general,
the table of contents structure will do: and the
definition is recursive (what is important changes
as you change contexts, go deeper).
/* RS joins */
Proposed: "Allow the user to navigate efficiently to
significant parts of content."
NOTE: "significant" changes as you navigate.
AG: Hit both TOC and table example in the proposal.
Action IJ: Propose checkpoint rewording to list.
5) PR#279: Proposal to resolve formal objection to Checkpoint 9.2
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#279
Refer to RS proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0232.html
RS: I wouldn't mind leaving 9.2 as is and stating that
to minimally satisfy the requirement, a user agent
can prompt for all form submissions. I looked at IE, and
based on what they have, it doesn't look difficult to do.
IJ: I agree that RS's proposal would satisfy the requirement
of 9.2.
Resolved: Leave checkpoint as is. Checkpoint satisfied
if the user can configure prompts for all form
submissions.
Action IJ: Modify document accordingly.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 15:21:35 UTC