W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Raw minutes from 19 October UAAG WG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:53:59 -0400
Message-ID: <39EF5157.7762C1EC@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
19 October 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

 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

Minutes of previous meeting 12 October:


  User Agent FTF meeting update and call for participation
   JG: Please register. Visit meeting page:

   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.


1. Possible bug w.r.t. DOM requirements. Started with request from GR
   to raise priority.

   IJ: Proposed to raise 5.7 to P1, otherwise ATs will not have 
   access to style information through the DOM.

   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
   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

   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.

     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

     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.

        - 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

  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

  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
          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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:28 UTC