W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Raw minutes from 17 May 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:02:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3B042E5E.2F57368C@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
17 May 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:

Reference document 11 April 2001 Guidelines:

Minutes of previous meeting 16 May:

Next meetings:
 18 (extra), 23 (extra) May 

 Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (scribe), David Poehlman,
 Eric Hansen, Gregory Rosmaita, Tim Lacy, Jim Allan,
 Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: Denis Anson, Mickey Quenzer
 Also HB regrets for 23 May.


0. Issue 471: Standard APIs.

 EH: We've been discussing this at ETS as well.

1.Issue #491: Selection/Focus: Require focus for enabled elements only. 
Don't require selection. Clarify that "user interface focus" is not
 related to viewports (but instead to other controls of the user 

IJ: Refer to focus proposal in:

IJ: Proposed clarifications:

 - Yesterday: Our expectation is that the focus only designates
   0 or more enabled or disabled elements.

 - Content focus / user interface focus 
   is required at all? Yes, but (for content focus)
   only required when there are enabled elements in a viewport.

 - Selection is required at all? No.
   Proposed: Have a "selection" label.

 - Not required to move focus to viewports where there is no

TL: Something always has focus, and only one thing does at at a time.

TL: Allowing focus to be set to disabled elements breaks the model.

JG: There are two concepts of focus here. The one in UAAG 1.0 is that
an item with focus has behaviors. There is a second type of focus that
may be placed on an element even without behaviors associated with it.

IJ: Clarification: the proposal is that one *could* be able to move
focus to a disabled element, but not be able to activate it.

GR: I want context-sensitive information about disabled elements.

IJ: I propose "Set of things that may take focus ONLY comes from
enabled and disabled elements."

Tim: That's good for me.

/* Ian reviews definitions of interactive, non-interactive,
   enabled, disabled */


 - Accept proposal.

Action IJ: Add to next draft.

4.Issue #473: Checkpoint 9.3: Priority of list of event handlers lower 
than priority of activation

Q: Why is 9.3 a P1 and 9.5 a P2?

JG: No new information here. The rationale for the P1 requirement is
that you be able to activate them at all. The P2 requirement is to
have information about what's there. Users without disabilities often
activate these things without knowing they are there, either.


 - No change; no new arguments.

5.Issue #474: Is configuration required when the user agent 
always/never does something anyway?

Q: For which checkpoints with a binary configuration, is the priority
the same in both states?

Action IJ: Revise proposal to address this.

6.Issue #476: Definition: rendered content/viewport circular

IJ: Definition involves the sense.
I think that style sheets create rendered content.

GR: Please contact wai-xtech when this definition completed.

EH: This definition should perhaps not include touch since our
document excludes braille output.

IJ: I'm ok to exclude tactile sense, but include discussion of it.

DP: Hover: if you are considering rendering as a static moment in
time, input doesn't apply. But if rendering is about future intent,
then note, for example, that presentation conveys information.

 - Content includes scripts.
 - Rendered content is the part that is perceived by the senses.


 - Adopt IJ's definition with EH's proposed changes.

7.Issue #477: Checkpoint 2.10: Does this also include script (written 
language), or just natural language?

Refer to reply from Martin:


 - 2.10 includes scripts.

Action IJ: 
 - Clarify that 2.10 includes both. 
 - Visual output of text relevant to written scripts.
 - Spoken output of content relevant to natural language.
 - Include Martin's example in techniqeues

Issue X

Q: Is it a P1 requirement to require small text size?

IJ: My understanding is that our priority is based on the ability to
configure large text size, not configure very small text size. People
do not need to configure text size to very small sizes for P1 access.

JG: The resolution of the monitor will make a difference here.

JA: The same is true for small fonts. 

IJ: The only problem is the low density case, would you need to get
below 9 points?

IJ: Is the full set of fonts a requirement for P1 access?

IJ: What is the unit for fonts that the browsers let you set, points
or pixels? I mention pixels because it's a hardware question and the
ability of the eye to perceive detailed information.

JG: What about I18N?

JG: There's a point at which, below a certain number of pixels, you
can't represent all of the information, or it's overly deformed.

RS: Usually, the cutoff is 12 pts.

EH: What does "12" refer to?

IJ: There are ways to parameterize average character size.

GR: Ask about "central baseline".

Action IJ:
  - Ask I18N and Chris Lilley about how to express a lower bound
    on avg character dimensions in terms of readability.

9.Issue #480: Checkpoint 6.4: Security concerns about write access to 

IJ: We addressed this yesterday, but the question is "how does this
work in practice"? Suppose that the author publishes a Web page that
changes the user's privacy preferences. The question is how, in
practice, do you distinguish what the author is trying to do from what
the AT is trying to do.

GR: There may be digital signatures (e.g., trusted assistive
technologies). Ping someone at Adobe (access.adobe.com) on how to do
this. There is an API that comes with the Acrobat reader (MSAA-API).
Only trusted tools can use that API.

  Refer to: http://access.adobe.com/wp1.html

TL: There may be security implications for this checkpoint.


 - Add a Note that due to security considerations, write access
   may not be available at all times for all sessions. Refer to
   section on limited functionality and conformance.

 - Add a Note about what the goal is: access by trusted ATs.
 - Add a cross-reference to the limited functionality case.

/* Tim leaves */

Issue 481 (Working Draft): 9.2 and 9.6: Definition of "non-interactive

 - Accept definition: "A non-interactive element is piece of content
 that, by specification, is not expected to be an enabled element in
 any user session."

Issue 482 (Working Draft): 9.5: Moving focus without triggering
handlers may be wrong.

IJ: What's an example?

JG: One example is an onchange event handler that is triggered

IJ: But that's not an onfocus event.

GR: Some examples for onfocus that pop up windows when focus is set.


 - No change for now.

Action DP and GR: Produce an example scenario to justify this

Issue 483 (Working Draft): 10.1: Clarify "purpose of a table"

 - Clarify in 10.1 that the purpose is recognized through markup.
 - Give HTML examples ("summary" and CAPTION elements) in techs

Issue 484 (Working Draft): 10.3: Black, white, and color: does graying
rely on color?

IJ: Are shades of black and white considered color?

EH: Does this mean don't rely on black and white visually displayed
text alone?

JA: I think we should consider black/white/grey to be color. People
have contrast sensitivities. 

HB: Many of these colors will map to the same shade of grey.
A colorblind person may have a different perception of some of these

IJ: Is a bold font distinguishable from a regular font?

JA: That depends on the font.


 - Grey is a color.

Action IJ: State this in the document.


10.*GR: Will send test pages to list
   Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/05/wai-ua-telecon-20010503.html

Done:  http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/wai/ua/tests/index.html

Dropped Action Items

    6.CMN: Find out from SYMM WG whether repositioning of objects will 
appear in the spec (or should be in UAAG).

   11.MQ: Review speech checkpoint techniques document
      Due: 3/17/2001

Open Action Items

    1.IJ: Edit the text of checkpoints 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, and 8.2 so that
are not required to conform for all formats that are implemented.
      Source: Minutes 19 April 2001 Teleconference

    2.IJ: Make mention of animations, text streams, and refresh in the 
      Source: Minutes 19 April 2001 Teleconference

    3.IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines (JRG volunteers
be one of the testers).

    4.IJ: Write up a proposal for the cascade of APIs

    5.JG: Talk to AT developers about assistive technology about using 
accessibility API

    7.RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway to

    8.GR: Review event checkpoints for techniques

    9.GR: Rewrite different markup (list of elements) that 2.9 applies
for clarification.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 16:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:31 UTC