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

Raw minutes from 9 November 2000 UAAG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:33:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3A0B0A0A.93CAABCA@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
9 November 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

   Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Mickey Quenzer, 
   Harvey Bingham, Kitch Barnicle, Gregory Rosmaita,
   Tim Lacy, Jim Allan, David Poehlman

   Debby Fletter (from AOL), Eric Hansen

   Rich Schwerdtfeger, Charles McCathieNevile

Upcoming meetings:

  16 November (face-to-face)
  23 November: No meeting (Thanksgiving)
  30 November: Teleconference

Minutes of previous meeting 2 November

Review Action Items (see details below)


    1.ER/PF FTF meeting in Washington, D.C. on 4-5 December
      JG: I plan to attend.


  1.User Agent FTF meeting update
	 Ian has reserved hotel rooms
	 Have registration from AOL: Scott Totman

    Action IJ: Update meeting page with more details about hotel.

  2.Last call update
    Not many reviews yet...

  3.Implementation report

    IJ: Note that it's interesting to have information about
        a) How software satisfies requirements in general.
        b) How software satisfies requirements in the specific
           context of this document: mainstream UAs with ATs.

    Guideline 1. Support input and output device-independence.

    Guideline 2. Ensure user access to all content.

    Guideline 3. Allow the user to configure the user agent not to 
                 render some content that may reduce accessibility.
    HB: not yet available

    Guideline 4. Ensure user control of styles.
    JA: not available

    MQ: I found some information about speech synthesizers.
    Don't know any ATs that implement style sheets (CSS2 aural
    IJ: What about emacspeak
    Action IJ: Ask Jason white for info.   
    Action GR: Talk to Håkon about CSS support.  

    Guideline 5. Observe system conventions and standard interfaces.

    Guideline 6. Implement specifications that promote accessibility.
    need reviewer
    IJ: There may be some Team-confidential information I can
    show the Director.

    Guideline 7. Provide navigation mechanisms.

    Guideline 8. Orient the user.
    Assigned to KB.

    Guideline 9. Allow configuration and customization.
    Assigned to JG.

    Guideline 10. Provide accessible product documentation and help.
    GR: not available

  Action: Have a new implementation report for the meeting.

4. Agenda

   IJ: If we have time beyond handling issues, what would we do?

   1) Discuss our goals for all W3C WG in February 2001.
      JG: From WAI CG, I didn't get strong vibes that other WAI WGs
         want to meet with us; they want to meet with other WGs.
   2) Review the trouble spots of the implementation report
   3) Review the trouble spots of the Techniques document
      JG: I'll try to prepare for this.
   4) What we will do if we have to go to CR?
      MQ: My expectation was to get implementation experience
          from reviewers.
      GR: Some reviewers aren't forthcoming about their support
          for features, e.g., the DOM.
   5) Brainstorming on requirements for next draft.
   6) How to get W3C Members involved, integration of accessibility
      features into specs or separate?
   7) MQ: I'd like to talk about promotion of the document.
      JG: We need to coordinate with EO.
   8) Coordination with other WGs in general.
      GR: And ER in particular. 

  /* Discussion about current implementations v. forward-looking
     requirements */

    - In Note after 4.14 explain that the CSS2 reference is
      there to provide background information about what the
      terms mean.
  Action IJ: Improve wording of Note.
  Action MQ: Send more details about these parameters for
             the techniques document based on OpenBook.

  Action JG: Send a call for agenda items to the list.

5.Issue #321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint

IJ: I think that there are two issues:
 - Definitions
 - Requirements.

IJ: I haven't heard much disagreement in the way of requirements.
    Mostly in the way of definitions.

/* IJ describes how alternative is more about author-side
   and equivalent is about user-side */

GR: If we don't have convergence in use of terms between WCAG 1.0
and UAAG 1.0, need to report an erratum (and work on convergence
for WCAG 2.0).

GR: There are (or were) a number of sites that translated text
into braille (with GIFs of individual braille characters). But
I also want to know "this has dots 1, 2, 4, and 6". Another layer
of abstraction is "this is the precise mapping of the dot". Another
human-understandable is the roman alphabet equivalent. 

GR: I can't tell whether the issue is editorial (definitional)
yet until I see another version.

JG: I think that it's really in the WCAG court to say what
an equivalent is (and how it's identified). And we need to
focus on making those available.

GR: I think that different classes of equivalents becomes a UA issue
(e.g., to provide access to more or less verbose equivalents).

IJ: We are awaiting information from Eric on this topic.

6.Issue #322: The definition of the word element

Open Action Items

 1.GR: Contacts for Dolphin for reviewing WCAG

 2.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation information

 4.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and 
       number of items in search 

 5.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation information

 6.HB: Review guideline 3 for implementation information

 7.CMN: Send a proposed definition of equivalent to the group
 Not done

Completed Action Items

    1.IJ: Reserve hotel rooms for FTF meeting

    2.JG: Add issues from adobe review to the issues list

    3.JG: Send a last call reminder to chairs, WAI groups and invited

    3.MQ: Review speech checkpoints for implementation information

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2000 15:33:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:29 UTC