MINUTES(edited): W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 3 February 2000

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman 
Harvey Bingham 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mickey Quenzer 
Dick Brown 
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Kitch Barnicle 
Denis Anson

Regrets: 
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Charles McCathieNevile 
Jim Allan 

Action Items

Open Action Items

   1.IJ: For 4.10 add the CSS2 property. And cross reference 4.7 techniques 

   2.IJ: For 4.11 add the CSS2 property. 

   3.IJ: XWindows techniques for 5.3 

   4.IJ: DOM2 techniques for 5.3 (if any) 

   5.IJ: For 6.2 add a link to the TR page. Add links to conformance
sections in specs. Also to validation services. 

   6.IJ: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3 

   7.IJ: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order. 

   8.JG: for 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines. 

   9.DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent info
is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0 

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

  11.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. 

  12.JA: Submit techniques for 4.14 

  13.JA: For 4.8 check with Geoff Freed and Madeleine Rothberg, and copy
response to Marja any results. 

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

  15.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this? 

  16.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of
streamed text. 

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

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

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

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

  21.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines. 

New Action Items 

   1.JG: Send request for times to adminreq. 

   2.RS: Take these issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as
well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian 

   3.IJ: For 6.2, propose some wording to address the "when available" issue. 

   4.RS: Send some code to show how to listen to content changes 

Completed Action Items

   1.JG: Send a list of questions related to AT developers to the ua list.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0205.html 

   2.JG: Add discussion to next weeks agenda of how techniques are added to
technique document 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0231.html 

   3.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on
graphical configuration issue
     Status: Dropped at request of CMN 

   4.DP: Send comments related to accessibility problems of IE 5.5 beta to
the UA list. 
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0207.html
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0208.html 

   5.DP: For 4.7. Note that setting the volume is different than
configuring. Submit technique.
     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0219.html 

   6.MQ: For 4.9. Send a screen shot. 
     Status: done 

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 10 February 2000 @2pm ET 

Regrets: Ian, Marja 

Agenda [1] 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0231.html 

1) Open Action Items 

1.IJ: For 4.10 add the CSS2 property. And cross reference 4.7 techniques 
Status: Not done 

2.IJ: For 4.11 add the CSS2 property. 
Status: Not done 

3.IJ: XWindows techniques for 5.3 
Status: Not done 

4.IJ: DOM2 techniques for 5.3 (if any) 
Status: Not done 

5.IJ: For 6.2 add a link to the TR page. Add links to conformance sections
in specs. Also to validation services. 
Status: Not done 

6.IJ: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3 
Status: Not done 

7.IJ: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order. 
Status: Not done 

Status: Not done. 

8.JG: for 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines. 
Status: Not done. 

9.JG: Send a list of questions related to AT developers to the ua list. 
Status: Done. 

10.JG: Add discussion to next weeks agenda of how techniques are added to
technique document. 
Status: Done. 

11.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on graphical
configuration issue . 
Status: Cancelled. 

12.DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent info is
discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0 
Status: Not done. 

13.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. 
Status: Pending 

14.DP: Send comments related to accessibility problems of IE 5.5 beta to
the UA list. 
Status: Done. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0207.html 

DB followup: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0208.html 

15.DP: For 4.7. Note that setting the volume is different than configuring.
Submit technique. 
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0219.html 

16.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. 
Status: not done. 

17.JA: Submit techniques for 4.14 
Status: No info. 

18.JA: For 4.8 check with Geoff Freed and Madeleine Rothberg, and copy
response to Marja any results. 
Status: No info. 

19.JA: 4.14: There are CSS2 properties (including :focus). 
Status: No info. 

20.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this? 
Status: Done. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0242.html 

21.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of
streamed text. 
Status: No info. 

22.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media) 
status: no info 

23.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media) 
status: no info 

24.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January. 
Done: refer to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0253.html 

25.MQ: For 4.9. Send a screen shot. 

Sent cancel message. 

26.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 
Status: pending. 

27.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines. 
Status: pending. 

2) Telecon on 17th on the DOM.

JG: List of people contacted on the home page. 

3) CR Update and discussion 

IJ: After CR closes, need to compile info. CR review comments may have an
impact on the document. 

JG: Propose adding a meeting the 23 Feb to handle CR comments. 

Action JG: Send request for times to adminreq. 

4) FTF meeting update 

JG: The ball's in Judy's court. Dates are those discussed for April. 

5) Discussion of techniques for checkpoint 5.5 Ensure that programmatic
exchanges proceed in a timely manner. 

JG: Out of discussions with Charles at Microsoft. Question of how to verify
timeliness. 

Checkpoint 5.5 in Candidate Rec [2]. 
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-UAAG10-20000128 

IJ: What does "timely" mean? 

JG: What do we mean by this checkpoint? 

RS: Where this originated - in Windows, they want you to use the COM. Since
you can only do this from another process, you are affected by system
scheduling priorities. Access is then slow. We found in tests that
in-process response times were 12 times faster. 

DA: The AT user should have the same experience. 

RS: Want no noticeable degradation in performance. 

DA: In Word 97 (Win98), virtual keyboard input much slower than physical
keyboard input. 

JG: So "timely" has do to with process scheduling. 

JG: The other issue is synchronization. 

RS: You can't assume synchronization with fast APIs. Suppose that while the
AT is traversing the DOM tree, if the location in memory is deleted, or the
element
members are distorted, accessing those memory locations could lead to a
crash. This is a separate issue. 

DP: An example of timeliness: an AT starts rendering *before* a new page is
loaded. 

DA: That's part of the proposed handshaking technique. 

JG: Apparently you can't start traversing the tree until the load complete
event received. 

JG: Is timeliness separate from the synch issue? 

RS: I don't think the two should be mixed. Some locking mechanisms may be
necessary to prevent corruption, etc. 

JG: Glen Gordon has complained about the MS because of out-of-process
access. They developed their own since they could do so in process. 

RS: Semaphore interface necessary when running on a separate thread. That
may be part of a WAI PF requirement for DOM 3. 

GR: I had proposed a checkpoint based on a WAI PF discussion. I'll post the
proposal to the PF list as part of our DOM 3 wish list. 

IJ: I don't think it's reasonable to require a semaphore interface on user
agents. 

/* Return to verification of "timeliness" in 5.5 */ 

DB: I should consult Rob Sinclair (at MS, does MSAA) on this. 

RS: I've sent email to him. 

RS: The "helper" facility from IE is one technique for being in-process.
Another is to embed the browser in your application. 

RS: I'd like to see "in-process" happen. It would take significant changes
to MSAA to make that happen. 

IJ: I think that if in-process is required, the problem of no standard for
access to the DOM falls away. 

IJ: I propose asking PF two questions: 
- Should we change "timely" to "in-process"? 
- What kind of synchronization necessary? 

Need feedback by 18 Feb. 

Action RS: Take these issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as
well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian. 

IJ: I spoke with Håkon Lie about the DOM requirement. 
- Issue of open-ended spec. I propose that we limit to Recs that exist at
time of publication. We can update later. 
- Also issue of when the spec becomes available. What happens when DOM 2
comes out? You can't expect any implementations. We had this in ATAG 1.0;
took the approach of clarifying in the spec. You don't want conformance to
the same spec to change over time as much as possible. 

IJ: We might want to add the word "available" to 6.2. 

IJ: Same for 11.1 (WCAG). I think we need to limit to WCAG 1.0. 

JG: Also want to be sure that DOM includes features that will benefit
accessibility. 

RS: DOM 2 gives you a standardized event model. 

Resolved: 
1) Change 11.1 to refer to WCAG 1.0 specifically. 

Action Ian: For 6.2, propose some wording to address the "when available"
issue. 

Proposed: 
1) Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which you can
do through the UI." This would apply for form controls, style sheets. In
short, give
the same write access to everyone. 

HB: You need to be able to "undo" as well. 

RS: DOM 2 includes some style abilities. 

IJ: How does an AT get notified of content changes? (Checkpoint 5.4). 

RS: Add an event listener. MS has reams of documents on this. Our group is
doing work with this. 

Action RS: Send some code to show how to listen to content changes. 



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 Friday, 4 February 2000 10:44:11 UTC