- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:07:12 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
12 October 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference Present: Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Gregory Rosmaita, Mickey Quenzer, David Poehlman, Kitch Barnicle, Eric Hansen, Charles McCathieNevile, Rich Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Tim Lacy, Jim Allan, Harvey Bingham Absent: Denis Anson Next meeting: 19 October Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0062.html Minutes of previous meeting 10 October: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0055.html Announcements 1.FTF meeting update and call for participation MQ: I will probably attend by phone due to costs. DP: I'll be commuting from my house every day and have room to put someone up. JG: We have 9 confirmed (three by phone), 3 regrets, and 3 maybes. DP: Are there any people we haven't heard from? JG: Rich and Denis. DP: Will AOL participate? JG: No confirmation yet. MQ: I'll talk to someone from VidPie. Resolved: No objections to having a meeting with 9 people. 2.Review list of invited last call reviewers http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/09/reviewers-last-call-2.html JG: Still looking for multimedia companies. Discussion 2.Proposed Simplification of Checkpoint 8.7 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0060.html Resolved: Adopt proposal. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0060.html 8. Delete G9 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0070.html Resolved: - Move 9.1 to G4 - Move 9.2, 9.3 to G8 - Recycle G9 prose 9. Delete document source http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0072.html GR: I think that people might have an easier time understanding "document source view". EH: One possibility is to say in the document object view definition that people may call this a "document source view". MQ: Perhaps too close to "document object model". IJ: I would argue that fewer terms will make it easier to use. CMN: Given that "view source" and "show source" is a well-known name of a feature, I recommend with not defining it and leaving it there. IJ: What's the difference between document source view and document object view? CMN: The document object is constructed from the source. The common understanding is that source view means what came over the wire. EH: I think that with "document source view" in the UA Guidelines, there's a conceptual mismatch between checkpoint and the Note. The Note talks about source, the checkpoint talks about document object. IJ: Document object includes source. IJ: Another proposal is to just use "document object view" and talk about variance (e.g., from doc source to more than that). EH: And say that there is value in providing a view of the source. Resolved: - Leave "document source view" in 2.1 and in glossary - Add to definition of "document source" that it's a subset of the "document object". 3.Definition of User Agent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0058.html Amended: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0065.html GR: There's a difference between a composite user agent and one that conforms natively. DP: Works for me. Makes the guidelines easier to use. GR: All the components of a composite claim must meet the requirements that apply to it. /* Discussion that claims are made about a collection of things */ Resolved will dissent from GR and MQ: - Accept proposal and amended proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0058.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0065.html 4.Scope, Intro, Inside/Outside Analysis http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html IJ: Summarizes EH's proposal, and EH and IJ prioritization of some topics. MQ: My problem with a list of things we aren't going to talk about is that some people may feel left out. DP: Fix that by pointing those readers to relevant sources of information. GR: On the assumption that we're dealing with WCAG-conformant content: people have not been waiting for this after three year. CMN: I don't think that this document assumes in all cases WCAG-conformant content. GR: The UA needs to override shortcomings. JG: Most of the checkpoints don't depend on WCAG, but we built some of them based on WCAG requirements. CMN: Does it hurt us to put in "dependency on WCAG-conformance client"? GR: The first principle is do no harm. EH: I think that we have made a number of assumptions along the way in order to make the scope of the document manageable as well as to meet accessibility requirements. If we don't state that we expect WCAG-conformant content, then it opens the floodgates of potential repair issues. It makes us more responsible for repairing bad authoring. I think there are valid reasons not to tackle that. IJ: We have not emphasized repair functionalities. CMN: I think that it's not true that we've avoided repair in content. GR: Document not useful if it expects all conformant content. CMN: To say that this document assumes wcag-conformant content will undermine its credibility. IJ: I propose: - Designed with some WCAG requirements in mind (to promote authoring of conformant content). - Looks forward (e.g., conformance to specs required) - There are some repair requirements built-in. CMN: I think this is editorial... EH: Are we satisfied with the amount of repair that we have in this document? DP: I'm hesitant to soften the wcag language because we want to promote wcag-conformant content. Resolved to add scope prose along the lines of: - Designed with some WCAG requirements in mind (to promote authoring of conformant content). - Looks forward (e.g., conformance to specs required) - There are some repair requirements built-in, and techniques as well. Who has read the 29 Sep draft: IJ, CMN, JG, EH, DP. Resolved: Editors will filter out editorial proposals in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0038.html 5.Repair Text, Definitions, Etc. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0045.html Resolved: - Adopt EH's 1.5 wording. - Repair content could be in the DOM, but not required. No statements about whether DOM repaired before-load/after-load etc. [ - Adopt suggestion 4 (2.6: do not generate repair text). - Add support, implement, and conform to the glossary. GR: I think that 2.6 should include a requirement to generate repair content when configured to do so. DP: If the author specified empty alt, then there may be something behind it. Resolved: - Add configuration requirement to 2.6 so that the UA generates repair text à la checkpoint 2.5. (repair). 6.Conformance Claim and keyboard API support http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0028.html RS: Due to target of this document, no problem with this. CMN: I don't see that this is necessary. Resolved: - Even if there isn't a standard system keyboard API, the subject must implement some keyboard API. Action CMN: Send comments about whether a keyboard API always necessary. 7.Revised Abstract http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0032.html Other proposals: 10. APIs standard? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0078.html Decision to go to last call: IJ: Note that Tim Lacy has already agreed to go to last call. Agreed: CMN, EH, DP, KB, GR (with reservations but don't want to hold up the process), JG, RS, IJ, MQ. Resolved: The WG agrees to go to last call with modifications to the 29 September draft indicated above. Completed Action Items 1.IJ: Propose text for a note explaining the implementation issues related to providing user agent generated content through the DOM Status: Done in techniques document, but I will check. 4.JG: Talk to Ian about adding a column to the impact matrix for supporting authors in creating accessible content GR: Most authoring tools let you look at sample rendering. EH: Sounds like validation and repair. We don't have much about that today. IJ: I think that impact matrix should only say "this checkpoint is meant for this type of disability". Status: Dropped. Open Action Items 2.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and number of items in search Status: Not done. 3.RS: Send information (if you can) about tagging for information for improving performance Status: Unknown. 5.EH: Will propose text to be added to the guidelines document to discuss the scope and the limitations of the current document Status: Done. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0038.html 6.TL: Check with Microsoft Multi-media group to find a reviewer Status: Unknown. 7.TL: Check to see if MS can send representative to FTF meeting Status: Unknown. 8.GR: Contacts for Dolphin for reviewing UAAG. Status: Not done. Intend to call today. -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 16:07:15 UTC