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

Raw minutes from 27 January UA Guidelines teleconf.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:43:19 -0500
Message-ID: <3890ADE7.98112426@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UAGL Teleconference
27 January 1999


Jon Gunderson
Ian Jacobs
Denis Anson
Marja Koivunen
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Dick Brown
Jim Allan
Mickey Quenzer

Rich Schwerdtfeger
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile
Kitch Barnicle

NEXT MEETING: 3 February 2000 @2pm ET

Agenda [1]

1) Action items

    1.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning 
           disability people on graphical configuration issue 

    2.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 

      DB: IE Team and Charles and Dick, Tim Lacy, others 
          met at Microsoft. Reviewed all the checkpoints. The
          upshot is that IE isn't far from Level-A conformance.
          Keyboard-selectable text still not available. 
          We learned that if the Team decided to focus on these
          issues, they could hit Level-A. There was one point
          where a Power Toy was the answer. We may have better
          luck getting this list out there. Rob Rylea wasn't at
          the meeting.

      IJ: Which version did you review?
      DB: I think we reviewed the 21 Jan checklist. Charles will
          send notes to people in the meeting. We need to bring
          up-to-date the people not at the meeting and get
          a commitment from them.

      HB: Is IE 5.5 available?

      DB: It's in beta. No big differences w.r.t. accessibility.

      DP: IE 5.5 has real problems with accessibility from what
          I've heard. 
      DA: One build may have problems with screen readers. Another
          build may have fixed that.
      Action DP: Send comments to the UA list.

    3.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control 
          focus to not have new windows cause
          problems for usability. In particular, how this will work 
          with ATs. 

    4.GR: Draft a short minority statement related to merging 
          and priority of checkpoints 10.1 and 10.3 

    5.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search
          requests to servers of streamed text. 
      MK: I haven't got an answer. Will move up my todo list!

    6.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 

    7.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 

    8.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 

    9.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 

   10.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the

2) Candidate Recommendation update 

   IJ summarizes status of CR page.

   DA: How long is the review period?

   JG: Aiming for 18 February. Ending PR by the end of March.
       Have a ftf meeting in April to process issues. Hope to go
       to Rec in April.

   IJ: I'd to get the WG to contribute to a FAQ as part of the
       later process.

   JG: I've been contacting developers

   JG: One issue that they've raised is publication of the evaluation.
       They want to cooperate but don't want bad press. I've proposed
       different stages of response. I've suggested that in lieu of
       a checklist, that they provide feedback.

   IJ: I think we could anonymize results. The checklist is important.

   DA: Down the road, the vendors who want to claim conformance 
       will need to give a list.

   DB: Yes, we will have to do it. But the problem is that once
       you have done an analysis, you need to have your ducks lined
       up to address the issues. It's true that if MS doesn't analyze,
       someone else will. Thus, it's in MS's interest to do their
       own review.

   IJ: Create a hierarchy of results:

      a) Detailed checklist completed. This helps the WG understand
         how the document is being used. Make this list public.
         Include techniques!
      b) Anonymized checklist completed. Keep the developer's list
      c) Generic feedback.

   /* People indicate that this is reasonable to ask for */

   DB: The checklist is very useful from experience. Maybe play it
       up more in the document.

   HB: We should encourage developers to encourage techniques.

3) FTF meeting update

   JG: We have an offer from recordings from the blind
       and dyslexic (George Kerscher) to host a meeting in April.

   (Note that CSUN is 20-24 March.)

   JG: I propose during the week of 10 April.

   DA: I'll be running a meeting the 14-16 in New Jersey.
       Prefer 10-12.

   MK: I'm not available the week of 17 April.

   DP: I hope we will have conference calls set up.

   JG: We'll ask the organizers of the meeting. I would rather
       people attend physically and only use the phone as a backup.

   Resolved: JG will propose to Judy 2 days among 10, 11, 12 April.
             Alternative dates: 17, 18, 19 April.

   IJ: Note that I'll be moving to California early March, so I may
       have some available gaps during the first week. I'll also
       be travelling in Italy for 10 days in February. 

   JG: Ian, please analyze your travel schedule to ensure that we go
       to PR before 10 March.

4) Looking for Working Group members willing to help developers review
   their products

   JG: I've suggested to developers that WG participants may walk
       them through the guidelines. This is also very useful to the WG
       since it reveals points of misunderstanding.

   Volunteers: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Ian Jacobs, David Poehlman,
               Mickey Quenzer.

5) Special telecon with Assistive Technology developers on uses of DOM
   improve accessibility of AT 
   JG: Would like to invite AT developers to discuss the DOM during
       CR. I propose the 17th February (just before the end of CR).
   IJ: On the agenda for the meeting:

       - What is your experience with DOM 1 and DOM 2?

       - What is the current status of DOM implementation 
         in your tools?

       - What is your current implementation plan for the DOM?

       - If not, can you make a commitment to implement the DOM?

   JG: Yes, I think drafting a list of specific questions is a good

   IJ: Have a demo ready that people can refer to?

   JG: I'm working on that.

   IJ: Also need Mark Novak and Rich on the call to 
       talk about timely access, etc.

   JG: Also, I intend to contact Hans Riesebos.

   JG: What about Unix products?

   DP: Peter Korn does a lot of work with Java.

   Action JG: Send a list of questions to the ua list.

   JG: Refer to list of AT reviewers:
   JG: Please send additional organizations and contacts to the list.

6) Review of techniques document 

   JG: During CR, we will need to strengthen techniques for some

   IJ: Checkpoints without techniques:
       2.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 5.3, 6.2

   DA: P1 are the most important.

   Action DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text
       info is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0.
       IJ: Refer to ER Repair information. Talk to Wendy.

   Action JA: 4.14

   Action DP: 4.7. Note that setting the volume is different than
   Action MK: 4.8. Do any media players do this?
            JA: I'll check with Geoff Freed and send to Marja.
            JG: Also, contact Madeleine since she has action items.

   Action MQ: 4.9. Send a screen shot.

   For 4.10: Add the CSS2 property. And cross reference 4.7
   Action IJ: Add these.

   For 4.11: Add the CSS2 property. 
   Action IJ: Add these.

   Action JA 4.14: There are CSS2 properties (including :focus).

   Action JG 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines.
           Action IJ: I'll look at XWindows
           Action IJ: I'll look into DOM2

      Action IJ: Add a link to the TR page. 
                 Add links to conformance sections in specs.
                 Also to validation services.
   Action Ian: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3
   Action Ian: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order.

7) Discussion of "timeliness".

   JA: I've discussed with developers how LPWindows is must faster
       with NN than with IE. IE causes too much of a performance

   IJ: Perhaps we need to distinguish in the techs document
       between "that which has been implemented" and
       "this might work and we think it's a good idea".

   JG: Yes, we need to take more care with what we put in the 

   IJ: I'd like to see:
    a) Techniques editorial cleanup.
    b) Techniques substance cleanup + markup of what's known
       and what's not.
    c) Future techniques will only be added according to those
       two categories. 

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2000 15:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:26 UTC