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

Raw minutes from 9 May UA Guidelines teleconf.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:11:55 -0400
Message-ID: <391862FB.FA8FB33E@w3.org>
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 


 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
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

    1.IJ: Propose checkpoint rewording of checkpoint 7.6 to list to
          wording realted to improving the efficiency of accessing

    2.IJ: Update document with changes related to splitting checkpoint
          into two checkpoints

    3.IJ: Add proposed definitions of content, etc.. to the document.

    4.IJ: Add minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.2 are to allow for 
          configuration for a prompt for any form submission

    5.IJ: Add technique related to user accessing the attributes of an 
          element to Checkpoint 2.1

    6.IJ: Add a checkpoint related to synchronization of view

2) Announcements

   1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Electronic and Information
      Accessibility Standards by the United States ARCHITECTURAL AND
      until May 30th

   2. New draft of ua guidelines available

3) PR#257: Difficult to know when a UA has conformed.

  DP: For 8.10, is this a mechanism for directly distinguishing active

  IJ: The highlighting part, yes.

  Review of section 3.1 of proposal:

  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...


  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

  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. 


  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

  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

   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.
     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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:27 UTC