- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:43:10 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
11 May 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Dick Brown
David Poehlman
Tim Lacy
Madeleine Rothberg
Mark Novak
Eric Hansen
Jim Allan
Mickey Quenzer
Regrets:
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile
Denis Anson
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Hans Riesebos
Al Gilman
Absent:
Kitch Barnicle
Next teleconference: May 18 at 2pm ET (regular time)
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0346.html
1) Review of Action Items
Completed 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
7.MR: Confirm usage of "configure" in checkpoints to verify that it
means "static choice" appropriately (e.g., 4.9).
Open Action Items
4.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers.
(No deadline.)
5.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1.
6.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
in
the techniques document.
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.Please respond to proposed resolutions on the list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0335.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0336.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0337.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0339.html
JG: I will consider these resolved unless there are objections
on the list.
3) Extending the current charter to finish work on guidelines
JG: Our charter expired at the end of the
IJ: We need time to get to Rec. Then we would produce
an implementation report and a summary of our experience.
In the charter after that, we would talk about
our next work.
EH: Expected duration of extension?
IJ: For the moment, I've taken conservative approach:
assume a last call again. However, we might get done
sooner. This depends on whether the WG considers that the
document is substantially different.
4) PR#257: Difficult to know when a UA has conformed.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#257
See Ian's analysis of the checkpoints that need minimum
requirements:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/05/ua-minreqs.html
EH: The grouping seemed reasonable to me.
JG: We talked about checkpoint 4.5 last week.
MR: Need to clarify that
a) Slowing all video and animations.
b) When its a multimedia presentation, for any video slowed
to 80% of original speed, need to synchronize.
Proposed clarification:
- For a visual track for animation or movie:
At least one setting between 40% and 60% of the original speed.
- For a pre-recorded auditory track including stand-alone audio
presentations: At least one setting between 75% - 80% of
the original speed.
DP: For synthesized speech, you can drop to 50%.
JG: The range should be that of the synthesizer. You can query
the hardware for the range.
IJ: What about software synthesis (e.g., mbrola).
MR: Pre-recorded only? What about live audio that you can
slow down?
EH: Then this is almost like "Pre-recorded".
DB: This might not be possible in some cases.
Action EH: Propose definitions for auditory and visual tracks.
- For synthesized speech (4.9)
1) Get the range from the synthesizer, or
2) Otherwise, get the range from style sheets if supported
DP, TL: Don't think we should have a third option of arbitrary
range.
TL: Wouldn't you lose synchronization if speech is handled
externally in a multimedia presentation? How do you slow
down a video presentation to match the speech rate you
chose.
JG: In this case, the synthesizer would speak that the rate
that the caption would be appearing.
DP: A lot of synthesizers can change rates dynamically,
depending on what they're doing.
IJ: Is a user agent capable of handling any range of
speeds?
JG: High rate of speech and synchronization (e.g., highlighting
on the screen) might cause some problems. Otherwise,
the user agent should be able to handle any range the
synthesizer is capable of.
TL: How fast the ua feeds the synthesizer doesn't matter.
IJ: So what about an arbitrary range if 1 and 2 not available?
TL: I don't know that arbitrary range will fly. What if the
synthesizer can't handle the arbitrary range we specify?
How should that be handled?
EH: Then applicability kicks in.
IJ: What values should be supported?
JG: Normal talking rate is about 180 words per minutes.
Real speech synths allow between about 120 words-per-minute
to approximately 500-600 words per minute.
DP: We use about 240 words per minute daily.
IJ: Then I PROPOSE that we suggest a range of about 120 to
500 words per minute.
TL: Overruns are a non-issue
DP: We are also asking for configuration. So applicability comes
into play when there is no range. I don't see configurability
in multimedia players. I see some activities that use
synthesized speech (e.g., chat programs). Also,
"MagicSpell", that reads email, but doesn't let you change
speed, but not pitch.
- For a synchronized multimedia presentation:
For any visual track that may be slowed from 100% to
to 80% of its original speed, need to synchronize visual and
auditory
tracks. Below 80%, the user agent can drop out the auditory
track.
MR: What about other types of equivalents (e.g., text
equivalents)?
Checkpoint 7.6 Allow the user to navigate efficiently to
and among important structural
elements identified by the author.
Checkpoint 7.7 Allow the user to configure structured navigation.
JG proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0356.html
EH: I agree, but some of the language of JG's proposal needs
fixing.
IJ: I think the minimum is:
a) For markup with a clear semantic layer:
navigation of important semantic elements according to
specification,
b) Otherwise, navigation of the document object.
c) Sequential (depth-first) forward and reverse
navigation is the minimum (P2).
IJ: What about dynamically changing the scope of objects? To let
you delve into lists, forms, tables and stay within that scope.
What about in a generic markup language? How do you identify
subtrees to skip over?
EH: We may need to clarify for 7.6 ("to and among"): Was "within"
intended?
IJ: No. We could drop "to". It's the first step to "among".
MN: Is it a problem that navigation and the configuration of
navigation
have different priorities?
EH: I think it's reasonable to have different priorities.
JG: 7.7 makes 7.6 much more powerful.
MR: I think 7.7 should be both configure and control.
EH: Then are people satisfied with P3 for 7.7?
MN: I'm not comfortable with it.
IJ: Then it makes sense to clarify in 7.7 that we're talking
about the objects being navigated, not the navigation
abilities themselves (i.e., sequential).
EH: We have among and within / control and configure. We have
a max of 4 checkpoints.
IJ: I propose keeping "control and configure" together.
Who would like 7.7 (configuration/control) to be P2:
JA, MN, TL, JG, DB, probably EH.
TL: If you think about navigation according to structure
from farther away, a user agent that doesn't allow
configuration of the navigation will exclude users. It seems
that they should both be the same priority.
IJ: Note on changing priority to P3: P3 means easier, but P2
means difficult to without it.
JG: I hear people saying that without configuration, it would
be difficult for people to do what they need to do.
JG: I'm concerned about the WG changing the priority at this
point since that question didn't come up during any of our
reviews.
TL: If 7.6 is implemented to deny access to some content, that
would cause problems.
Action IJ: Propose new 7.6:
a) Clarify that the what is configurable is the set of
objections, not navigation abilities.
b) Configure and control
c) Add a note that control allows a skip-over functionality
(although that could be implemented separately as better
then 7.6 minimal sequential requirement0.
Checkpoints 7.1 and 7.3 (P1):
Forward, sequential navigation.
Checkpoint 7.4 (P2):
Forward and reverse sequential navigation.
Checkpoints 8.4 and 8.5
Refer to JG's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0357.html
JG: Perhaps this is the same situation as 7.6/7.7: the functionality
is not as useful if you can't configure.
MR: But the minimal requirement of 8.4 should make it useful even
when you can't configure it.
EH: Same comment about "resource specification"
IJ: In any case 7.6 and 8.4 need to be harmonized. It sounds like
the outline view should be those elements navigable according
to 7.6. 7.7 should follow 8.5 as well.
IJ: Configurability of navigation seems more like a P2 than
configuration of the outline.
IJ: The intent of the outline is to give people an overview:
and to hide some (a lot of) content.
JG: E.g,. for low vision or if you have a reading disability,
you want less content in front of view.
Action IJ: Propose a clarification to 8.4 to indicate that
what is intended is to hide content (and why).
Indicate in techniques where to get information for outline
entries. Delete "lists" from example.
Question: How do you compose the outline view for things
that don't have a label?
JG: Get header information according to spec; otherwise compose a
label
to indicate type.
Min Req:
- 8.4 Outline view is the set of things navigable according to
7.6.
- 8.5 Maps to 7.7.
- The two functionalities are not bound, but the ranges are.
Action IJ: Propose synthesis of 7.7/7.7/8.4/8.5
Checkpoints 8.6/8.7
Refer to JGs Proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0358.html
Resolved: Adopt JG's proposal (since previously resolved).
5) PR#280: What does it mean to synchronize views? What views should be
synchronized?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#280
See JG's proposal to drop the addition of a checkpoint on
synchronization
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0337.html
IJ: Any objection to dropping the sync requirement.
Resolved: Drop the proposed synchronization checkpoint.
6) Madeleine's proposal for configure/control
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0354.html
EH: I generally endorse her proposal.
People should review her proposal.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2000 15:43:20 UTC