MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 9 May 2000

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Jim Allan
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mark Novak

Regrets:
Mickey Quenzer
Gregory Rosmaita

Absent:
Tim Lacy
Madeleine Rothberg
Denis Anson
Al Gilman
Kitch Barnicle
Eric Hansen
Charles McCathieNevile
Hans Riesebos
Dick Brown


Action Items

Open Action Items

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

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

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

    4.MR: Confirm usage of "configure" in checkpoints to verify that it 
means "static choice" appropriately (e.g., 4.9).

New Action Items

    1.IJ: Find out what HTTP gives you in the way of resource name

    2.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.

    3.IJ: Propose revision to checkpoint 3.8

Completed Action Items

    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

    7.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

Minutes

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.)

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

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

    4.MR: Confirm usage of "configure" in checkpoints to verify that it 
means "static choice" appropriately (e.g., 4.9).

1a) Completed Action Items

    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)

    7.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

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.



Copyright  ©  2000 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C 
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your 
interactions with this
site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 16:15:24 UTC