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

Raw minutes from 20 January 2000 UA Guidelines teleconf.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:56:21 -0500
Message-ID: <38877675.93B29D00@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
20 January 1999


Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Denis Anson
Gregory Rosmaita
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Dick Brown (half the call)
Mickey Quezner

Rich Schwertdfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Jim Allan

NEXT MEETING: 27 January 2000 @2pm ET

Agenda [1]

RESOLVED: The Working Group agrees to move to Candidate Recommendation
          based on the resolutions below.
          The WG agrees to let Jon, Ian, and Judy do scheduling of the
          CR period. We will inform the WG.

   1.WD#185: clarification of "single key" access 

   Refer to proposal by Ian

   KB: Do we need the first checkpoint of two? What would go under 
       that one? 

   JG: Things like moving keys closer together, using mnemonic
       commands, etc.

   DA: In the second proposed checkpoint, change "frequently used
       commands" to those preferred by the user as frequently used.

   KB: How will vendors verify satisfaction? You're basically 
       requiring access to most commands since "frequently" is not

   JG: Refer to unix resources files for how key access specified.

   DP: Put key bindings in a profile.
   Resolved: Ian's proposal accepted.

   Action Ian: Incorporate changes.

   2.LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs

   Refer to Ian's proposal

   IJ: What does it mean to inform the user of content changes through
       the user interface? Also, what does it mean to inform the
       user of user interface changes through the UI?

   DA: What about author-initiated (e.g., through scripts).   
       Recall that one of the issues had to so with changes due to
       scripts that happen in a separate viewport.

   GR: Add to list of useful information about a link: following the
       link will open a new window.

   DA: If you just notify the AT, the user doesn't know that he or
       she should ask for that control.

   DB: What kind of changes to content are we talking about?
   GR: Content changes that occur without user intervention:
       scripts, refreshes, etc.

   DB: I think a lot of responsibility here belongs to the author.
       The author should author, for example, so that the user
       gets a message about the changes.

   JG: Even if changes are announced, the user will have to explore
       the document/user agent to find out what the changes were.

   IJ: Consider the example of the MS home page; you tab to links
       and a popup menu appears.

   JG: Note that notification to ATs is required by another

   Proposed: Delete 9.1

   Proposed: Change priority of 3.9 to P2 and downgrade 9.1
             to P3.

   MQ: I don't want to rush things to get the document done...
   IJ: I think we are rushing it. 

   GR: 9.1 has, and 3.9 doesn't, alerting the user to changes.

     - Delete 9.1
     - Raise priority of 3.9 to P2.

   HB: "Redundant" is not printer and screen, but different

   Action Ian: Incorporate changes.

   3.LC#136: Proposal for checklist delivery (part of conformance)

   Refer to HB's comments

   Action IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation
              is dated. Propose as a note to handle this.

   DA: There is precedent for this.

   4.LC#126: Proposed change in wording to 5.5 Provide programmatic
             notification of changes to content and user 
             interface controls (including selection and

     - No changes to current wording
     - Use Ian's comments in techniques:
       DA: Also, document what event notifications are made available
           through APIs.

   Action Ian: Edit techniques.

   5.LC#127: How to verify 5.7 (Provide programmatic exchange of
             information in a timely manner.)? 

    Refer to JG's proposal:
     - No change, discuss in techniques (which need work)
     - Add statement about synchronization between user actions with
       the AT and what's going on in the general purpose UA. If you
       are forced to way an extra 20 seconds, totally disorienting.

   Action Ian: Add a statement about orientation.

   6.WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2 

   JG: Lack of specificity (minimal requirement) concerns me and I
       don't want to raise the priority in that case.

     - Leave checkpoint 10.8 a P3 until we have a more specific

   7.WD#181: Request for a wrapper note designed for AT developers
             explaining relation to guidelines 


      - This is not an issue to hold up CR. 
      - This work is being carried out in the EO WG.
   8.WD#178: In 10.1 and 10.2 what does communicate through an API mean 

    Refer to JG's proposal.

    JG: If you can't change the input config, the documentation
        suffices. Also, the API requirement is covered by 5.2 in
        conjunction with the 10.1 and 10.2 (actually, 10.3) 
        requirement to make info to the user through the user

    Resolved: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3.

    Action Ian: Edit the checkpoints accordingly.

   9.WD#177: User control of current focus change and notification. 

    Refer to Ian's proposal:
      - Content + UI

    IJ: Can we be more specific about "interference"?

    GR: My main concern is focus.

    DP: I want "flag me" but "don't require action"

    IJ: Is it only a focus issue? Spawned windows are annoying
        and may cause problems for users with cognitive disabilities.
        Might be a problem for motor disabilities moving windows out
        of the way.

    GR: You need an alert mechanism in order to know that a new
        window has appeared.


     - Use old 4.15 but add prompts, messages, other windows.
     - Add a checkpoint to ensure user control of focus
       changes. P2.

    DP: Move some of my 1.5 techniques to new checkpoints.

    Action IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP.
  10.WD#188: Add definition of disability? (to CG) 
   JG: This was sent to the WAI CG and copied to all the WGs. The UA
       WG on its own is not required to add a definition. This should
       be added later if the CG creates a definition or document.

    Resolved: No change in the Guidelines.

  11.LC#112: Split checkpoint 10.1 into two separate checkpoints for
             and user agent input functionalities and mark as 
             an issue during last call.

    Refer to JG proposal:

    JG: Last call reviewers:

           Liam Quinn : Leave as is with current priorities.
           Jon Gardner: Merge, leave as P2
           Eric Hansen: IJ thinks he said merge; don't recall priority.
           Martin Duerst: Author specified at least as important
                          as user specified.

    GR: I object to the proposal. Keyboard is vital to access today.
        I've proposed a number of techniques.

    How many people agree: DA, JG, DP, HB, KB
    How many people object: GR, IJ, MQ


       - JG's proposal is accepted.
       - Objection from IJ, GR, MQ will be documented and delivered
         with the CR.

    GR: The WAI PF is dealing with this issue.

    Action GR: Draft a short minority statement.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 15:56:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:25 UTC