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

raw user agent minutes 11/28/00

From: Kitch Barnicle <barnicle@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:18:27 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Kitch Barnicle

Gregory Rosmaita
David Poelhman
Harvey Bingham
Ian Jacobs

Eric Hansen (joined at Issue 388)

Review of Action Items

Remove GR action item to contact Dolphin
No other action items reported as completed.

Implementation Report

Not discussed on this call

Open Issues

Issues related to definitions will be addressed by sub group - Ian, Al, Jon 
and Eric. This subgroup will reach consensus and the submit to 
list.  (Issues 321, 358, 359)

Issue 361 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long 
/ consider ease-of-use
Name: Phill Jenkins

Jon sent a proposal to the list to add a note to this checkpoint on 11/27.

Resolved 361: accept Jon's proposal to add a note, subject to final edits 
by the editor (re: word confound)

Skip issues 362, 363, 382, - waiting for action items or edits

Issue 386 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note
Name: Earl Johnson

Resolved 386:  This is considered a communication with other software 
issue, not a user interface issue. The working group believes this note is 
currently in the correct location.

Issue 387 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? 
Name: Earl Johnson

IJ: Do we really mean an  outline of text labels ?
JG: we don't need that restriction
GR; should recognize user's configuration (ie if images off, text should 
show up)
IJ: how do you determine a label
JG: the definition of labels needs to be clarified
IJ: what if content is a video, what is the label for a video, how does an 
author specify
DP: would video be considered a structural element
IJ: it could be
IJ: for content where there isn't clearly defined labels, what are we 
asking UA to generate from heuristics
IJ: AMAYA will construct an outline view from headers, SVG, style sheets
GR: shouldn't we be referencing 6.1 and 6.2 (access features)
IJ: consider headings, it this case we want content in the outline rather 
than a label, but that isn't always the case
IJ: acrobat viewer also does an outline view
IJ: do we agree - we are eliminating the option of getting a text outline
IJ: in some case you want the content itself and in others you want the 
label (e.g. form control label)
JG: checkpoint is saying, give me a subject of what is there
GR: do we have a definition of outline
IJ: i believe that is what is being asked
IJ: would should describe out expectations, can define perfectly - using 
labels should be a technique, UA may use something else
IJ: take the word labels out of the checkpoint and describe our expectations

Action  IJ 387: Ian will propose new wording for check point 8.4 reflecting 
our discussion for later review by the group. In expressing the new check 
point avoid confusion between "content-type label" and "label"

Issue 388 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1
Name: Earl Johnson

Resolved: the working had discussed this issue in the past, and while we 
understand that this feature is highly desirable, it would not impede 
someone from using the user agent, although it may be difficult to use  if 
the user has to keep re-configuring.

Issue 389 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an 
objective fashion
Name: Greg Lowney

IJ: propose I write to Greg Lowney for clarification - there may have been 
an misunderstanding.
JG: it would help us if we had specific examples of places in the 
guidelines where the requirements were not clear
JG: specifically ask him to review section 3 to see if it answers his 

Action IJ 389: to follow up with Greg Lowney (see notes above)

Issue 390 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with 
all-or-nothing approach
Name: Greg Lowney

Action IJ: one way to implement existing action item related to this is to 
delete checkpoint 1.3 and instead where we talk about input modes .. in 
conformance say that you have to implement keyboard.

Issue 391 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no 
requirement to reimplement input methods.
Name: Greg Lowney

391; pending action from Ian

Next telecon- Thursday at regular time
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 17:09:18 UTC

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