- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:35:11 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
WAI UA Teleconf
30 Mar 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
David Poehlman
Mark Novak
Kitch Barnicle
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Mickey Quenzer
Regrets:
Harvey Bingham
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Next teleconference: 6 March
Next face-to-face: 10-11 April
Agenda [1]
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0533.html
0) Ian comments on document:
- Integrated some comments from Mark Novak.
- Wrote long descriptions.
IJ: I will publish a new one after the face-to-face.
1) Review Open Action Items
1.IJ: Ensure that UA FAQ makes the EO WG agenda.
Status: Done.
2.IJ: Reuse questions from ATAG FAQ.
Status: Done.
3.IJ: Coordinate other longdescs for techniques documents with JG.
Status: Longdescs finished.
4.JG: Get MN and RS to review Appendix 5.
Status: MN Done.
5.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
6.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
Status: Not done.
7.DB: Review techniques for Guidelines 3, 4, and 11
Status: Not done.
8.DP: Review techniques for Guidelines 1 and 2
DP: I'm reviewing the whole document, will send comments.
9.GR: Talk to Paul Schrader at AFB (re: testimonials).
Status: Done. He will contribute one. And, as editor
of "Access World" magazine, can accommodate an article
on the Guidelines.
IJ: If you speak or write on behalf of W3C, please contact
me (as part of the W3C Comm Team).
10.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio
examples in the techniques document.
Status: Not done, but obviously HPR and JFW ones.
DP: Note that there is a multimedia presentation at the
JFW Web site.
11.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
GR: I sent comments on documentation, but others not done.
12.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10
Status: Not done.
2) Announcements
1. FTF meeting 10-11 April 2000 at RFBD in Princeton, NJ
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/04/ua-meeting-rfbd.html
IJ: Six registered today. Deadline for registration 5 April.
JG: Al Gilman may come. Rich may come.
DP: I still don't know.
MN: I still don't know.
DB: Don't know if Tim Lacy will attend yet.
3) Proposed recommendation update
IJ: Still no "no" reviews. One comment on post-REC tracking
of user agents. I request that this be discussed at the
face-to-face.
3) FAQ questions
JG: This is now in the hands of the EO, who discussed this
at the face-to-face.
CMN: I was at the EO meeting. They wanted more general
questions, and came up with a bunch. Wendy and Chuck
Letourneau took minutes.
JG: At CG meeting, Judy made it sound like EO would take care
of the questions.
CMN: For ATAG, we sent some stuff to EO and they dealt with it.
In the end, I think just Jutta and I verified that nothing
was drastically wrong.
JG: I don't know whether we need two sets of FAQs (for
media, for developers).
CMN: I think it would be a useful document to have for developers.
Useful for new readers of the guidelines.
IJ: Yes, an executive summary, for example.
Action IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for
developers. (No deadline.)
4) Implementaton Report
IJ: I still intend to talk to Tantek Çelik about IE on the MAC.
DB: I will continue to pursue my MAC contact.
JG: No information from Denis on this. I have an iMac now and
could do a run through the Guidelines.
5) PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
JG: Question raised by Phill Jenkins about whether a source
view would satisfy checkpoint 2.1.
JG: My understanding is that the user be able to choose which
content it wants rendered.
/* IJ reviews definitions of content and rendered content */
IJ: We've discussed 2.1 recently and decided not to reduce
to through the UI only. Instead, added a cross-link to
Guideline.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0426.html
CMN: Haven't we discussed before whether source was sufficient
access?
DP: I think it isn't, since you're required to read the markup.
CMN: In ATAG, the tool is supposed to provide access to content
through the UI.
IJ: I believe from the previous discussion on this that we
did not want to make this a stronger requirement to make
available all content for humans through the UI (at some
point). In the 2 March teleconference (as I recall), we did
not want to make such a change.
JG: Do our other checkpoints make the source view irrelevant
if its not accessible? Do you satisfy 2.1 with one feature,
or with a set of features?
IJ: Sounds like the "alternative equivalent page" case.
CMN: For HTML, you have to provide access to text content of
elements, images, titles, etc. Those things collectively
are what you must provide access to. You could have 39
powertools that work together, or offer a general solution.
GR: I don't think that 2.1 is not satisfied by a source view.
CMN: I agree.
JG: Then what does satisfy this?
IJ: I proposed that 2.1 be clarified to be "through the UI"
and this was rejected.
JG: Is 2.1 a collection of a bunch of things?
IJ: I think that the source view and and question of
2.1 through the user interface are orthogonal.
CMN:
- I think 2.1 is the general case. (There are other
specific checkpoints for access to particular types of
content).
- A source view and the rest of the UI are different
kinds of beasts, and we need to make that clear in
the document.
Process suggestion: We flag this as an important issue
on the mailing list and we attempt to find there
further input to have a clear resolution. Say explicitly
that resolution will come from list input.
DP: What would we leave out by reducing scope of 2.1 to
user interface only?
MN: Difficult for me to draw the line.
KB: I don't understand the trade-off. Does all content
meant for humans mean through all modalities?
MQ: The phrase "meant for humans" is not explicit enough.
CMN: I think 2.1 should be limited to human-intended content
through the UI. But the implication is: whether you require
a source view. I can use a source view for information,
but not all users can read markup. Having a source view
is valuable, but using the source view as the way that
you are expected to get information intended for people is
not sufficient.
DB: I think that there's a possibility (notably in the future)
for markup meant for devices so that when rendered, provides
content.
IJ: That's what scripts do today (e.g., generate a list of
numbers).
CMN: Non-renderable information is the sort of thing that
a source view is reasonable to use to provide access (for
skilled users). Stuff that's intended to be rendered should
be rendered for humans.
DP: I like having a source view available as a coder.
MQ: I think that we're saying is that the source view is
not sufficient for average users.
CMN: It's not appropriate what is "renderable content". It's
appropriate (and may be a requirement) for making available
machine-readable content.
Proposed: A note that says "A source view is not sufficient
for providing access to content that is meant to be rendered
for humans."
DB: I have problems with this since there may content
intended for people but not for all user agents. Any kind of
content can be considered renderable.
JG: We're not asking all browsers to support speech.
CMN: Longdesc is a good example of this. In the source, longdesc
is a URI (it's meant for machines). There's not requirement
to expose the URI, but there is a requirement to make
available the content at the other end.
JG: I'm concerned that if 2.1 stays as it is, a UA would not
have to make available an equivalent alternative.
CMN: I propose to add to 2.1 a note:
- For "renderable content", access must be provided
through the user interface.
- All renderable content (subject to the applicability
clause) must be available to the user.
- For content intended for machines, access to the user
through a source view is sufficient in some circumstances.
(CMN: The implication is that the source view is different
from a "canvas".)
- Content that is available its "final form"
(i.e., ready to view).
IJ: Need to define renderable content and make sure that
it's clear that information doesn't have to be available
all at once.
CMN: That's covered by 2.5
DB: What about multimedia content that the UA can't render?
CMN: Covered by applicability.
IJ: How does a UA dealing with generic XML distinguish
content for humans and content for machines?
DP: I think this is still covered by applicability.
CMN: I think the answer to IJ's question is work going on
in schemas.
KB: Are there any user agents that meet this checkpoint?
IJ: Only if a source view counts: Amaya.
CMN: PWWebSpeak handles longdescs.
IJ: What about scripts? The script is meant for machines,
but the content is meant for humans.
CMN: The UA doesn't know that. It does know that the
script is meant for a machine.
IJ: While that's true, wouldn't you (in spirit) want access
to that content?
CMN: Yes, but this is an authoring issue: use NOSCRIPT.
IJ: CMN, are you suggesting that a source view is a requirement
for all user agents?
CMN: No.
DB: I don't think that it's a requirement. You can't get
a source view for Word.
/* Ian gets the door, Jon summarizes the situation */
CMN and IJ disagree on whether 2.1 say "all content must be
available through the user interface".
Action CMN: Send a proposal to the list.
Adjourned 15:34 ET
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 429-8586
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 17:05:09 UTC