- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:43:23 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
24 July 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference [Exceptional teleconf] Present: Jon Gunderson (Chair) Ian Jacobs (Scribe) Kitch Barnicle Gregory Rosmaita David Poehlman Rich Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Mark Novak Jim Allan Eric Hansen Charles McCathieNevile Tim Lacy Dick Brown Jim Allan Absent: Harvey Bingham Mickey Quenzer Next meeting: 27 July. Regrets for August: Jim Allan Agenda [1] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0098.html 0. Issue 288: Min requirements only in checkpoints? GR: Obviously we have to be careful in our choice of minimal requirements. JG: The problem I have with ATAG's ideas of distributing information is that developers have to look further. UAAG will make it easier for developers to know what they have to do. Resolved: Yes, we will (and have adopted since the 7 July draft) adopt this proposal. 1.Issue 257: Minimum requirement for checkpoint 10.4: Allow the user to change the input configuration. [Priority 2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0082.html JG: Single-step allows modifier keys, single-command does not. Action IJ: Come with up clearer terminology. (e.g., "Direct" means you don't have to go through space, but you may use more than one command to get there.) What does single mean in the voice realm? Single word (what about I18N here??). Refer to JG's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0082.html GR: Same issues we have for accesskey: cascade required? warning or notification when customized configuration conflicts with OS bindings? I want to make sure that developers note the relationship between various input reconfiguration checkpoints. KB: What is reasoning behind the "3-step to 1-step" mapping? JG: It helps us avoid an explicit list. IJ: I think the choice of 3-step to 1-step is arbitrary but doesn't reduce the scope sufficiently. JG: At some point, I had proposed deleting 10.4. KB: I'm nervous about the configuration issue; I'm not sure that users will know how to use the configurations. DP: I have some problems with JG's proposal due to number of actions. RS: I tend to agree with Kitch. I want to see something concrete. GR: I think we should allow any configuration, basically. Since the user knows best their needs. GR: With voice input, how do you distinguish 1 command from three commands? IJ: Should we talk to voice browser WG? GR: Perhaps thinking in terms of voice would help us understand our scope here. How many people think every function (from a predefined set) should be available for rebinding: KB: I like the idea, but I see the potential UI nightmare. DP: I agree with Kitch. RS: I agree with Kitch. GR: I don't think we can delete 10.4 if 10.5 has a limited set of functionalities associated. RS: Excessive configurability doesn't imply accessibility. GR: I think that we should be considering what is configurable first, not what is currently done today. 10.4 says that input configuration may need to be changed. I don't see how you can get around saying the whole range of functions available. DP: We need to ensure that people can return to the default easily (this is covered by 10.7). JG: Does this mean that you want a built-in macro feature? RS: Refer to what's required by virtue of 1.3 (through the keyboard API). I think that we are requiring essentially macro operations. If it takes you 5 steps in the UI, you need to be able to get at all of them through keyboard sequences. RS: Maybe we can say that the UA is required to support no more than three keys in a sequence. IJ: I think that we need to consider that something is "single-stroke" when you can enter a particular mode. For example, you enter "table" mode and you have 20 single-keys available. We could say for 10.5 that these functionalities have to be available in any input mode. IJ Proposal: Allow reconfiguration of default input configuration. JG: We said that this checkpoint was not about changing UAs conflicting with default input settings. We still need to promote use of standard controls. I don't think you can rebind how standard windows controls are activated. RS: Then let's limit reconfiguration to those functionalities where there's not a standard binding in the operating system. RS: I think that people who need keyboard access would not want to alter standard bindings. Resolved: - Reconfiguration must not be required for standard system controls (i.e., where there are system conventions for bindings). You can have additional controls for doing something (e.g., printing). - GR: Note that there's a problem with accesskey since system bindings are overridden in some browsers by specified accesskeys. - Reconfiguration is only required for those functionalities with a binding in the default UA input configuration. This applies to like input methods (e.g., keyboard bindings can be remapped to other keyboard bindings). The minimal requirement for remapping is modifier key and single key. Action IJ: Write a proposal to the list for revised 10.4. GR: I think that 10.4 and 10.5 should be the same. That we get rid of the list of important functions and require the UA to allow single-key access to everything you can do through the keyboard by default. Action GR/IJ: Talk about 10.4 and 10.5 offline. Completed Action Items 10.KB: Propose new wording for natural language checkpoint http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0091.html Open Action Items 1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers. (No deadline.) 2.IJ: Add to note on checkpoint 8.1 the important cases that this checkpoint must provide information through the user interface 3.IJ: Update document with resolutions from 7/13/00 telecon 4.IJ: Check usage of multi-media in document 5.IJ and EH: Propose definitions for what "presentation" and content means 6.IJ: Formalize distinctions between "one step" and "one command" defnitions 7.EH: Send comments on definitions of "primary content" to the list for consideration by the group 8.GR: Re-examine the orientation checkpoints and see whether they can be clarified to account for control of rendering of audio (and possibly other content) on load. 9.HB: Review note for checkpoint 8.1 -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 24 July 2000 15:43:31 UTC