- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:11:55 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
9 May 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Jim Allan
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mark Novak
Absent:
Mickey Quenzer
Tim Lacy
Gregory Rosmaita
Madeleine Rothberg
Denis Anson
Al Gilman
Kitch Barnicle
Eric Hansen
Charles McCathieNevile
Hans Riesebos
Dick Brown
Next teleconference: Thursday May 11 at 2pm ET (regular time)
Regrets for 11 May: HB, GR, CMN,
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0314.html
1) Review of Action Items
Open Action Items
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.
4.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
in
the techniques document.
5.MR: Confirm usage of "configure" in checkpoints to verify that it
means "static choice" appropriately (e.g., 4.9).
1a) Completed Action Items
0.IJ: Propose a grouping of checkpoints based on their clarity of
stating minimum requirements
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0317.html
1.IJ: Propose checkpoint rewording of checkpoint 7.6 to list to
include
wording realted to improving the efficiency of accessing
content
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0287.html
2.IJ: Update document with changes related to splitting checkpoint
2.1
into two checkpoints
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507/
3.IJ: Add proposed definitions of content, etc.. to the document.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507
4.IJ: Add minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.2 are to allow for
configuration for a prompt for any form submission
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507
5.IJ: Add technique related to user accessing the attributes of an
element to Checkpoint 2.1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507
6.IJ: Add a checkpoint related to synchronization of view
(orientation
guideline)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0300.html
2) Announcements
1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information
Technology
Accessibility Standards by the United States ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD. Comments will be
accepted
until May 30th
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/overview.htm
2. New draft of ua guidelines available
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507/
3) PR#257: Difficult to know when a UA has conformed.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#257
DP: For 8.10, is this a mechanism for directly distinguishing active
elements?
IJ: The highlighting part, yes.
Review of section 3.1 of proposal:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/05/ua-minreqs.html
Checkpoint 2.5: When the author has not specified a text
equivalent for content as required by the markup language,
make available other author-specified information
about the content (e.g., object type, file name, etc.).
IJ: What if it is generated? What if it's inline (e.g.,
"OBJECT/data" in HTML 4.0?
Some options:
1) Pick at least one from this set...
2) Prioritize the list...
3) Require all (if available) from this set...
Resolved:
1) Requirement: Resource name and (most specific) type,
if available. Otherwise "Unknown".
Action IJ: Find out what HTTP gives you in the way of resource
name.
Action IJ: Propose a clarification text of 2.5 to make clear that
the user agent is expected to associate a text
equivalent with the object, text eq generated from
author-supplied information. [Note that this is a
case where the UA recognizes the association since
it creates it itself. Note also that this only applies
when the author has not followed the spec.]
HB: I'd like the UA to indicate to the user when it can't support
an object. Like for notification when a natural language is
not supported.
IJ: What about OBJECT? You don't want indication at every level?
JG: This is not an accessibility problem but a usability issue.
Also, our applicability clause says "when you don't support,
you don't support." This sounds like notification would
be a new requirement.
IJ: I am afraid to get into issues of error handling; that seems
like a stretch and may vary according to markup language.
JG: What is true is that the handling has to be done accessibly.
IJ: Should we identify which checkpoints are repair strategies
(like "When authors don't..." like "Until user agents...")?
This would include 2.5, maybe 9.2. Maybe it's not worth
if for only a couple of checkpoints.
Checkpoint 3.8: For automatic content changes specified by the
author (e.g., redirection and content refresh), allow the
user to slow the rate of change.
Proposed: Split 3.8 back into two cases: redirect v.
HERE:
1) For the redirect case, manual control. And translate the
redirect to a link. [Note that this is a repair
strategy for author-supplied redirects.]
2) For periodic refresh, people argued that they didn't want
to refresh manually since they wouldn't be aware of changes
occurring. In this case, manual control is minimal requirement
and you have to be notified that new content is available. There
are several techniques (periodic notification, mail-like
notification).
IJ: What other content changes are we talking about?
JG: Scripting information.
IJ: For the periodic type, you want to be able to stop with
notification. For the animations, you don't want this type of
control - you want actual control.
DP: Should this be configurable, so that the user can set the
refresh rate/prompt setting?
IJ: Is this on a page-by-page basis or globally?
IJ Proposed:
1) Make requirements for two specific cases
(in one or two checkpoints).
2) Something along the lines of:
"For automatic redirects or content refresh specified by
the author, allow the user to control the change."
3) Not an issue of timing. Minimal requirement is ability
to make the change manually. User agent has to provide
notification that new content is available in the
case of content refresh. And user has to be able to
find out that new content is available.
RS: What should the UA do in the case of an author-supplied
redirect?
IJ: Details up to UA, but the minimum technique is to allow
manual change.
Action IJ:
a) Propose new checkpoints (try to keep one checkpoint).
b) Ensure redirect technique is clear.
c) Find out why checkpoints combined in Austin and
whether we lose information by making checkpoints
more specific.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ftf-19991209
d) Global setting.
Checkpoint 4.5: Allow the user to slow the presentation
rate of audio, video, and animations.
Proposed: Use "arbitrary" figures here:
1) Video: At least one setting between 40% and 60%.
2) Audio: At least one setting between 75% - 8%%.
HB: I think the techniques should suggest that speed up also
a good idea.
3) Respect synchronization cues up to 80% of audio speed.
4) Global setting.
HB: Configure or control (dynamically)?
Checkpoint 7.6: Allow the user to navigate efficiently
to and among important structural
elements identified by the author.
IJ: I think we have identified the pieces to navigate now. We
Are honing in on the richness of the navigation techniques.
Consensus among those present that the exercise of going through
these checkpoints is worthwhile.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 15:11:58 UTC