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

Raw minutes from 21 December UAAG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:11:48 -0500
Message-ID: <3A427214.C06EDEBF@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
21 December 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Minutes of previous meeting 14 December:
Next meeting: 4 January 2001

   Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Eric Hansen,
   Kitch Barnicle, David Poehlman, Mickey Quenzer

   Jim Allan, Harvey Bingham

   Charles McCathieNevile, Rich Schwerdtfeger, 
   Tim Lacy, Gregory Rosmaita


DP: How does WCAG 2.0 affect us?

JG: Inclusion of accessibility features in other specs.

IJ: Early in process. One way will impact later: minimal
user agent requirements.

    1.Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001


    1.Update on glossary group formed in WCAG
    JG: Not much news.

    2.Update on joint meeting with DOM working group
    JG: Talked with Philippe Le Hégaret about DOM and UAAG.
        Apparently a lot of what we want will not be in DOM 3
        (e.g., access to selection through DOM API). 
        PLH did think that accessibility features clauses could
        be included in the DOM spec, so we would need to develop

    3.Update on joint meeting with CSS working group
    JG: Ian and Bert Bos and Jon talked about CSS and UAAG.
    IJ: Some issues we discussed:
     - The UI module (actively being worked on).
     - The behavior module (not much going on there).
     - ACSS module (interest in with Voice WG, no one working on).
     - Style for selection/focus? (part of the UI module)
     - Increased conformance requirements 
            * Allow users to create user style sheets.
     - CSS object model? (not much awareness)
     - Documenting accessibility features of CSS3 in the CSS3 spec.

IJ: Note that final rule re: section 508 published today:


IJ: Note that we only have five people here today.
JG: People may object to decisions, but they could have 
    attended the call.
4.Issue #415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4)

IJ: Is the focus always used to identify active elements?

JG: There are two focus concepts - programming focus and event
    handling v. point of regard.

IJ: Is an active element one that may take focus?

JG: Note that selection is defined by user. Active elements
    are identified by authors.

IJ: I understand that in a general way, one way to interact
with the document is to copy selected text to the clipboard. That
is user interaction with the document.


 - No change. Selection is not used to identify active elements.

   Respond to reviewer that selection is not part of determining what
   an "active element" is, since the definition states that what
   constitutes an active element derives from the format
   specification. Selection is a user agent functionality, not defined
   by the format specification.  Another way to say this is that
   authors provide active elements, and what is active depends on
   format specs. That's different from what the user agent offers.

 OPTIONAL Action IJ: Put a note in the definition of active element
 that this does not include selection.

5.Issue #416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard?

  - No change. Selection is a functionality covered by checkpoints
    1.1 and 1.3. This is already in the techniques document.

  Action IJ: Include selection and focus in note after 1.1 as
  examples of what must be done.

6.Issue #417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching 
from beginning without alert

  - Add a min requirement to 7.5 (an edited version of the following):
    "If the user agent allows the search to wrap back to the beginning
     of content, alert the user before wrapping back."
  - Don't require prompting.

7.Issue #418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text.

 - Resolved: No change.
   You don't want to search on "alt" text this unless 
   it's rendered, otherwise this will be disoriented 
   (this already discussed and built into current wording). 
   This is already stated in the techniques document.

EH: Is invisible/silent content considered rendered content?

JG: No. Don't want this to be part of search requirement.

IJ: Invisible and silent have effects on other content (as opposed
to 'display:none', which causes content not to be rendered at all).

Action IJ: Evaluate whether silent or invisible rendering has
an impact on checkpoints other than 7.5 (search).

8.Issue #419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal 

 - The highlighting of fee links is not temporary, it's a static
   rendering option (unlike selection and focus). The checkpoint says
   that a fee link is recognized through markup. There is no reflow
 - Per the face-to-face meeting, the default styling must not
   rely on color alone, must be different from the default styling
   of selection and focus, and must not differ from them in color

9.Issue #420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for 
confirmation when activating a fee link

JG: For form submission, the issue is disorientation. In this case,
you know that following the link will involve a fee (due to
highlighting requirement). 

IJ: There are authoring issues here: following a link confirms a
credit card purchase, but the user agent can't recognize that link as

 - This a good idea to improve usability.
 - This issue (inadvertent payment) is not strictly an accessibility
   issue (everyone is subject to this problem).
 - The current highlighting requirements provide "warning" to the
   user, thus an additional prompting requirement is not considered
   necessary today by the WG. The WG will consider this in future 
   versions of the UAAG.
 - There are some authoring issues here in any case, and WCAG should
   include requirements related to inadvertent payments.
 - This is not a pervasive problem today on the Web in terms of
   *user agent responsibilities*, so not urgent to address 
   with a prompting requirement in UAAG 1.0.

10.Issue #421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required.

 JG: This checkpoint should be part of Guideline 5. 

 JG: Is there an accessibility dependency on selection?

 /* We couldn't come up with one */

 JG: Is there an accessibility dependency on focus?
     ATs rely on the focus. But I can't imagine a user
     agent that doesn't implement focus.

 - Move second sentence of 8.6 to Guideline 5 as a P1 requirement
   (already the case). Use wording consistent with checkpoint 5.8.

Proposed (but NOT resolved):

 - Delete requirement to implement selection as part of 8.6 
   (there are no accessibility requirements that rely on 
   IJ: Note that, if implemented, other requirements related to
   selection apply.

Completed Actions

   35.JG: Contact Greg Lowney and ask for a counter-proposal about
   requirement. for checkpoint 7.3

   32.JG: Schedule face-to-face time with other WGs
   JG: Seems like there will be a short meeting with both,
   maybe longer with both. We need to prepare an agenda.

   33.JG: Talk to Cindy King about captioning

Open Actions

    1.WG: look for user agents that implement mouse events like mouse
with the keyboard.

    2.IJ: Follow up with Greg Lowney on issue 389

    3.IJ: (Issue 387) Propose new wording for check point 8.4 reflecting 
discussion on 28 November

    4.IJ: Ask Jason White for CSS implementation information for

    5.IJ: Publish new implementation report for the meeting

    6.IJ: Improve wording of note for 4.14 related to CSS reference

    7.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question 
(equivalence, text element, etc.)

    8.IJ: Draft new language for 6.2

    9.IJ: Get wording from Martin for thisrequirement (e.g., "conform", 
"implement", etc.) for issue 327

   10.IJ: Propose new checkpoints to see how it feels to harmonize the 
requirements related to comments in issue 348.

   11.IJ: Propose new checkpoints/modifiedcheckpoints for 8.2.

   12.IJ: Add some more explanation about the difference between 7.3

   13.IJ: Proposed fixed wording for 7.5

   14.IJ: Add to techniques a link to Adobe's accessible PDF

   15.IJ and AG: Revise the applicability provision and send to WG.

   16.IJ: Ask Adobe why this is hard (issue 382)

   17.IJ: 1.4 needs to be re-written in light of changes in checkpoint

   18.IJ: Proposed text in 2.1

   19.IJ: Add a note to 5.8 - content requirements may also apply to

   20.IJ: Mention that resizing and overiding absolute values is part of 
some specification in section 1.2

   21.IJ: Clarify the meaning of system colors

      a) clarify "recognize style" in checkpoints 4.5
      b) need more rational - refer to WCAG - style less important than 
other content
      c) add note 4.5 - give example of multimedia content that can be 
recognized as style

   23.IJ: Add technique to checkpoint 4.12 to make clear that:
      - This includes author-override if speech engine allows.
      - This includes whatever granularity offered by speech engine.

   24.IJ: Add a clarifying note to 4.11 that if you allow independent 
control of all sources of audio, you satisfy the checkpoint as well.

   25.IJ: Add a P3 checkpoint on user control of windows that

   26.IJ: Add a clarification to checkpoint 4.20 including:
           If a viewport includes other viewports, then this requirement 
only applies to the topmost viewport.
           Add a Note that other requirements still apply to

   27.IJ: Delete second sentence from 4.21

   28.IJ: Add to end of first sentence "with which it overlaps" in 
checkpoint 4.21

   29.IJ: Add "that benefit accessibility" to end of second sentence of 
checkpoint 5.8

   30.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

   31.JG: Propose a list of things we areexpecting UAs to recognize in 

   34.JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized
implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the

   36.AG: Send a reply to Phill related to issue 362

   37.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation

   38.GR: Talk to Håkon about CSS support.

   39.GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning

   40.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation

   41.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the 
techniques document based on OpenBook.

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

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 16:11:50 UTC

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