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

Raw minutes from 30 May 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:03 -0400
Message-ID: <3B15526F.86717CDB@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
30 May 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda announcement:

Minutes of previous meeting 25 May:

Next meetings: 31 May, 7 June.

 Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (scribe), David Poehlman, 
 Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita, Jim Allan

Absent: Mickey Quenzer, Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: Tim Lacy, Eric Hansen, Harvey Bingham 

Reference document 25 May 2001 Guidelines:


Agenda for 31 May teleconference with assistive technology

JG: I intend to send same survey as a year ago:

GR: From UAAG 1.0:

 "Note that the ability of conforming user agents to communicate well
 with assistive technologies will depend in part on the willingness of
 assistive technology developers to follow the same standards and
 conventions for communication."

JG: Proposed agenda:

 - Structure of document / changes in Guideline 6
 - Review of previous survey 
 - Is MSAA necessary? Sufficient? 
 - Status of DOM implementations? DOM intentions?
 - Interest in interoperability testing
 - Security: We don't address, but good ideas are invited.
 - Questions from AT developers.

IJ: I think we need to ask the question that AOL raised: 
what do AT developers intend to implement? 

DA: Have you spoken to Randy Marsden of Madentec?


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


/* IJ reviews 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6 */

DA: Analogy: Is a ramp ok in all cases? Stairs may be more convenient,
but a ramp is probably ok in all cases. Similarly, the accessibility
mode in these cases works for everyone.


 - It is sufficient to satisfy checkpoints 3.3, 5.1, 5.3,
   5.5, and 5.6 without configuration as long as the user
   agent provides the accessibility functionality.

 - UAs should allow configuration.

#500: 4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints, how does
override work? Can captions be positioned in a separate viewport?


IJ: Other styles covered by other checkpoints.

JG: None of the current media players support the requirements of this
checkpoint. Windows Media Player always plays captions in a separate
viewport, but the captions are always just underneath the video.
If you move around, the viewport with the video moves too.

JG: Quicktime overlays text on the background of an image. "Key text"
allows authors to put the text track over a video track. With
Quicktime Pro, you can reposition where the captions are. You can have
two key text tracks. If one is larger than the video track, then you
can position it outside the region of the video track. 

JG: So Quicktime lets you put the captions anywhere *on* the video,
but not outside of the video.

JG: I don't know how Quicktime handles positioning in the case of

JG: For SAMI, there's a hard-wired location.

JG: With RealPlayer, you can put a region wherever you want. But it's
not clear that the user agent would have to create a larger region to
position captions so that they don't overlap with the video track.

JG: So, what if the author didn't make space to move captions
off of the video, is the UA responsible for doing this?

IJ: I don't think so.

JG: So that means that the author needs to provide for space
both on and off the video track in the case of user agents
that support format-based positioning.

IJ: I don't think that we should require the user agent to "rewrite a
document to make it better."


 - Adopt proposal with EH edit.
 - Clarify that last two sentences apply to both format case and
   viewport case.


Action JG: Organize a teleconference to address 4.6 and invite media
people to attend.  For example: Rob Lanphier of RealNetworks, Kathy
Demaree of Microsoft (she is in charge of accessibility for the WMP),
Geoff Freed, and Cindy King.

#506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different components
control different content?

IJ: The point is that when a user agent module handles Web resources,
a global configuration in that module affects all resources that it


 - Adopt proposal (with editorial tweaks).

#512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes 


 - No lower bound due to I18N, hardware issues, individual
 - Clarify that small text size (and depends on
   script) is not the intention of this checkpoint
 - No exemption in the case of small text size since
   we can't draw the line.

#513: Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified or
contradicts specification?

IJ: A couple of options:

 - Point out that 2.1 says "if the other spec contradicts UAAG 1.0,
   you should / can violate the other spec in order to meet 
   the accessibility requirement."

 - And 2.9 says "do what the spec says to satisfy this requirement,
   otherwise do the following..." 

IJ: In section 13.3.1 for OBJECT (HTML 4.01), it says
    "[the user agent] should not render the element's contents, but it
    must examine them ..."

JG: Furthermore, configuration not to render some types of objects
is one of the options (see bullet two of 13.3.1).


 - No change.

#514: Checkpoint 1.1: If UA functionalities are keyboard operable,
must all UI controls be?

IJ: In practice, most user agents enable keyboard operation of user
interface controls.

  -Change 1.1 to state that the user must be able to operate with the
   keyboard any functionality that is available through the user
   interface (in some configuration).

  - Typically, this will involve keyboard operation of user interface
   controls in addition to direct keyboard operation of

  - Direct keyboard operation alone may cause problems
   due to the cognitive load of memorizing shortcuts. See Guideline
   11 for configuration requirements.

Explicit user request


JA: I think that if the submit button has focus or you select it, then
that should be considered an explicit user request. It doesn't matter
where the activation came from (e.g., AT or through the user

IJ: What about an onfocus handler attached to a button? It's not
an explicit user request in that case.

DA: Should the user agent correct for malicious design?

GR: It's not malicious as much as "photon-dependent" assumptions.

JG: In techniques document, we could mention configurations
    to exempt specific categories (e.g., press on submit buttons).
    Allow users to have more convenience by configuration.

JA: I have Ad-Blocker software for pop-up windows. This software
blocks all of them (even when I explicit request to open a viewport).


 - For checkpoint 5.5:   
   - Change to be a configuration to prompt for any form submission.
     IJ: No extra implementation burden, IMHO.
   - In techniques, mention other configuration options.

 - Adopt proposed definition of "explicit user request".

 - Clarify in definition of "user agent user interface" that these
 things are not part of content nor created by content; they are part
 of the user agent.

Completed action items

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

3.IJ: Mention "themes" in the section on configuration files (along 
with profiles, init files).
  Status: Done for next draft.

4.IJ: Send a proposal to address the "global configuration" issue: it 
may be several settings.

Open action items

1.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

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

6.GR: Review event checkpoints for techniques

7.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 Wednesday, 30 May 2001 16:05:10 UTC

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