- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:53:59 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
19 October 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Present:
Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Gregory Rosmaita,
Mickey Quenzer, Eric Hansen, Jim Allan, Tim Lacy,
David Poehlman, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Charles McCathieNevile
Regrets: Kitch Barnicle
Absent: Harvey Bingham
Next meeting: 26 October
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0107.html
Minutes of previous meeting 12 October:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0083.html
Announcements:
User Agent FTF meeting update and call for participation
JG: Please register. Visit meeting page:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/ua-meeting
JG: We will have a bridge available for call-ins, but
attendance preferred.
MQ: I'll be attending by phone. Should I register anyway?
JG: Yes, please register. We'll filter afterwards.
IJ: I'll update meeting page when I have more information
about hotels, etc.
JG: Recommended to fly to Dulles, closer to meeting.
Discussion
1. Possible bug w.r.t. DOM requirements. Started with request from GR
to raise priority.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0110.html
IJ: Proposed to raise 5.7 to P1, otherwise ATs will not have
access to style information through the DOM.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0123.html
IJ: The question is, if a user agent doesn't support CSS, it may
still need to implement the CSS module since otherwise ATs won't
have access to all content.
/* IJ calls Arnaud LeHors */
IJ: ALH says that the Core module gives you access to the whole
content. You can query elements for a style attribute and you have
access to the style sheet as a string. Therefore, access to content
is possible without the Style module.
/* IJ reviews arguments why CSS2 module beneficial but not
critical: AT will have to compute much anyway */
Resolved: No change to checkpoint 5.7 priority (P3)
since access possible through the Core Module
generically.
GR: I think that there's a resource problem for AT developers
in having to implement CSS. I think that computation is an
unreasonable burden to place on the shoulders of AT developers.
JG: I think that AT developers who have concerns should express
them during last call. We should also have the DOM WG ensure that
our requirements make sense.
GR: Some AT developers have expressed that they don't have
resources to review the spec...
CMN: There are large browser developers and small AT developers,
but there are also small browser developers and some reasonably
large AT developers (significantly larger than browser teams). I'm
not sure that the pushing the burden on UA-based developers all the
time will be an appropriate solution, unless you want to have only
larger user agent developers.
GR: Not easy to do one-to-one mapping of UA developer's resources
to AT developer's resources. AT developers are not just focusing on
UA accessibility. They have to communicate with other software.
They may focus on specific user agents to cut down work.
MQ: At least for the PC, most people are using Internet Explorer.
If you look at that model, what difference would P1 and P3 make?
JG: If we raise this to P1, we would probably have to show much
greater dependency on this module. Up to a few months ago, we were
only depending on DOM 1. We are making one step here: get AT people
to start using the DOM. Perhaps in UAAG 1.1, after more experience,
and if we can convince AT developers to get more involved and to
show more dependency, we can raise the priority.
GR: AT manufacturers I've talked to have said until user agents
implement the DOM spec according to spec, there's no advantage
to implementing it (lack of interoperability).
IJ: That's not our problem, that's a problem of conformance to the
DOM spec.
DP: I see that it's our goal to have user agents expose as much
information as possible. Something that troubles me: wide disparity
about availability of information across platforms. I'd be for
raising the priority if we could defend the improved
interoperability.
RS: I think that having a specialized interface is a good idea,
but not a P1 requirement.
JG: I encourage GR to encourage AT developers to comment on this
checkpoint during last call.
2. All W3C working group meeting:
a) Who can attend: EH, DP, GR, MQ, TL or rep, JA, IJ, JG
probably: RS
probably not: CMN
don't know: KB, HB, AG
JG: So, about 8 people (not including W3C staff)
b) Preferred days (February 26-27 or March 1-2)
EH: I prefer later in the week.
MQ: I prefer later in the week. If I'm going to be there,
it's better for me to spend more time rather than less
(since a cross-country trip).
Conclusion: Slight preference for later in the week.
c) Groups we would like to meet with:
Some proposals:
- For UAAG 2.0 work: Mobile, Voice
- For ongoing coordination: WCAG, PF
- For repair issues: ER
- For AT requirements: DOM WG
RS: Seems like more of a PF function than UA to me.
IJ: It would be important to show up with proposals.
CMN: There's probably some good value in meeting with ATAG
as well. We plan to have a day working with the ER WG.
We resolved to move the "AERT" document to the ATAG WG.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/
MQ: Are Voice and Mobile groups working together?
CMN: Yes.
CMN: We should read all relevant specs before talking to
WGs (and expect them to read our specs).
JG: Our concerns should be UI and markup to promote
accessibility.
GR: We could follow the PF model and have specific individuals
track specs. Send reps to the different groups.
IJ: This seems to me to be a PF role: reading and tracking
specs and coordinating with WAI groups.
CMN: As a PF Member, I am currently working on SMIL. What SMIL
wants is a 3-week turn-around re: alternative content, keyboard
access, etc. Should I coordinate this with the UA WG, or would
that be a waste of time? I think that it would be useful if
people in UA take enough responsibility to read the specs, just
to coordinate with PF.
IJ: I agree.
GR: Me too, we need to be conversant in other technologies.
CMN: ATAG and ER have asked to meet together with a laundry list
of groups.
GR: We should try to build relationships with other groups
doing guidelines.
Proposed:
- A half-day meeting for UAAG WG alone.
- A meeting with UAAG, ATAG, WCAG WGs
- unified glossary
- conformance granularity, issues.
- A meeting with PF (and if possible, Voice and Mobile)
- A meeting with ERWG (to discuss repair functionalities
and implementation strategies) also possibly with ATAG.
Action JG: Propose these meetings to coordinators of all
WG meeting.
3. Last call update
IJ: Shooting for Friday (tomorrow). Didn't happen
today since I was sick yesterday.
IJ: Also, it seems like issues that arose (equivalency, GR's
objections) will not require substantial changes
before going to last call (though objections will still be
treated as such).
4. What we will work on after last call starts:
- Implementation report. This is important and will
have an impact on whether we go to CR.
Do product evaluations as part of this.
- Techniques document review
- Update Impact matrix
Action IJ: Include request for implementation information
in last call announcement.
Action CMN: Check Amaya documentation accessibility.
Action MQ: Evalute user agents for conformance to three checkpoints
related to speech.
Action JA: Look for implementation of G7 checkpoints.
Action JG: Look for implementation of G5 checkpoints.
Action DP: Look for implementation of G1 checkpoints.
Action GR: Look for implementation of Documentation Guideline
checkpoints.
Format to follow:
- Checkpoint number in dated version of spec. Base analysis
on last call version.
- Please indicate operating system, names and version of
user agent(s) you are evaluating.
- If available, please provide a URL to evidence of your claim.
8. Equivalency issue
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0106.html
EH: I expect to propose editorial changes to the document. I don't
want to open any new issues by sending my comments.
IJ: If it is editorial, then it can wait until the next draft.
If it's really really editorial, then I can try to insert it.
Otherwise, we can handle during last call. If truly editorial,
then it can go seamlessly into the next draft.
Open Action Items
1.IJ: Prepare last call document
Status: Ongoing.
2.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and
number of items in search
Status: No news.
3.RS: Send information (if you can) about tagging for information
for
improving performance
Status: To be done shortly!x
4.TL: Check with Microsoft Multi-media group to find a reviewer
Status: Not done.
5.TL: Check to see if MS can send representative to FTF meeting
Status: TL will join as much as he can by phone.
Still working on finding a rep to attend ftf.
6.GR: Contacts for Dolphin for reviewing WCAG
Status: Ongoing.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 15:54:02 UTC