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

Raw minutes from 24 May 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:59:23 -0400
Message-ID: <3B0D681B.7AB15178@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
24 May 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:

Minutes of previous meeting 23 May:

Next meetings: 25, 30, 31

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

Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger, 

Regrets: Denis Anson, Harvey Bingham

Reference document 11 April 2001 Guidelines:


The Working Group observed a minute of silence in honor of Len Kasday.


#490: Series of minor clarifications 

1) Accept.
2) Accept.
3) Accept.

4) Definition of "empty" string: no *characters*.
   GR: People are afraid that pages won't validate if no
   spaces. I have proposed techniques
   DP: If three spaces are not considered an empty string,
   then the screen reader will not know that there is
   anything there.
  - Accept as we are matching WCAG 1.0 requirements:
    null alt is considered valid.
  - Our focus requirements of G9 mean that people
    can get to the links.
  - Information is available through the DOM and 
    can find out that images are present.
  - Empty string has no characters (including spaces).
  - Put in techniques document to allow configuration
    in case of spaces alone.

5) Accept.
6) Accept.
7) Accept.
8) Accept.
9) Accept.
10) "Indicate the viewport's position relative to
     rendered content."
11) Accept.
12) Accept. But :
  - Don't emphasize single-user environment.
  - Change available profiles to available default
    profiles or those created by the user.
13) Accept.
14) Accept.
15) Accept. Someone might receive claim by email, or
    might be on CD-ROM. People won't make a conformance
    claim and hide it from people.
    - Add (e.g., on the Web, on CD-ROM, etc.).
16) Accept.
17) Accept.
    - Not just 8.2, but also Guideline 6.


 - Added to well-formed claim requirements that claim
   must include information that enables the user to
   identify the user agent (e.g., version for 
   a particular natural language).

/* Eric leaves */

#492: History mechanism and relation to plug-ins 

JG: You can only keep track of your own focus. 
When you get back focus, restore the previous state. No
communication is necessary with the plug-in.

TL: The only difference between a new viewer and an embedded one, is
that we call the former and host the latter. When the SVG viewer is
called, IE has lost the focus. If you close the external viewer or
switch back to IE, IE picks up where it left off.


 - No change to the document; each viewport maintains its own
   history information.

#493: 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a bounding box" 


 - No exemption for animations outside the box.
 - For checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, eliminate placeholder
   requirement and point to checkpoint 2.3 since unrendered
   content becomes conditional content.
 - For checkpoint 3.8, put this under Guideline 2 and have
   it refer to checkpoint 2.3 in the placeholder case.

/* Tim leaves */

#494: Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken 

See above resolution of 490 to modify definition of explicit user

#500: Captions positioning.

JA: I asked Geoff Freed to review the proposal:

#502: What constitutes blinking? 

GR: Slow blinking may cause problems for people with
    cognitive disabilities.
JA: Also, 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off may cause people to miss
MQ: Blinking at any rate can disturb assistive technologies.


 - Do not restrict requirement on blinking text to the range of
   2 Hz to 55 Hz (as is done in section 508).
 - Define blinking per CSS2. "Blinking text alternates between
   a visible and invisible state."

#503: 9.3: Clarification requested: does this mean that onfocus events
are not triggered?

IJ: "onblur" isn't part of 9.4, since you've already left the
    element. Or are we to break onblur semantics?

JG: The purpose of this is that some scripting is problematic
from an accessibility standpoint.

IJ: We need to clarify what types of handlers 9.4 and 9.5
are about.

JA: Also a problem with respect to 9.3; it might break
the history.

IJ: It's not clear to me what HTML attributes, for example,
are covered by 9.4 and 9.5, since those checkpoints
takl about "input device" event handlers. Are these just
about keyboard/mouse? What about onfocus itself, or onblur?


Completed action items

For next draft:

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

For 31 May teleconference:

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

Open Action Items

3.IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines (JRG volunteers to 
be one of the testers).
  Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137

4.IJ: Revise proposal to address Issue #474.

7.RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway to the 
  Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258

8.GR: Review event checkpoints for techniques

9.GR: Rewrite different markup (list of elements) that 2.9 applies to, 
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, 24 May 2001 15:59:27 UTC

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