- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:02:51 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
4 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0005.html Minutes of previous meeting 21 December: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html Next meeting: 11 January 2001 Present: Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), David Poehlman, Eric Hansen, Gregory Rosmaita, Tim Lacy, Jim Allan, Rich Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Charles McCathieNevile, Harvey Bingham Absent: Mickey Quenzer, Kitch Barnicle Announcements 1.Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001 JG: Who's not going? JA, TL Unsure: EH, DP Going: GR, JG, IJ Action IJ: Put up UAWG meeting page for meeting week of technical plenary. Link to Plenary meeting page. Planning 1. Looking for a UA representative at coordination group meeting on 27 February for WAI working group meeting in Boston. JG: In addition to Chairs and Team contacts, they would like another rep to attend. 2.Update on glossary group formed in WCAG JG: There has been a glossary group formed. There is a published draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/12/unified-glossary Issues 4.Issue #421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required. http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#421 IJ: Are their system conventions for implementing focus? TL: In Windows, there's an OS focus rectangle and system-defined focus events. In the context of IE, you can get/set focus through scripts. In a future version of the OS, we'll probably give the user more control over how the focus rectangle appears. JG: How important is it to use OS conventions for focus? TL: I don't know why people would manage their own focus / events mechanisms. It is technically possible for an event to occur where there is no focus. Resolved: 1) Move "Implement selection/focus according to system conventions." to a P1 G5 checkpoint. Delete remainder of 8.6. 2) Ok to merge background and foreground color requirements in a single checkpoint (4.3) as in 29 Dec 2000 draft. 3) Adopt Ian's proposal for issue 348: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0459.html AND: - Add requirement for styling configuration that min req is one mechanism other than color. 5.Issue #422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#422 Resolved: a) We agree with reviewer. b) Resolved per adoption of proposal in previous issue. c) Ensure that techniques updated accordingly. Action IJ: Update 8.8 techniques. 6.Issue #423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented. http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#423 RS: Suggest that in techniques that a separate list of keyboard shortcuts suffices. JG: UAs handle this differently. IJ: The issue is: a) Do you want a special list (one place to go to)? b) Does in-context information suffice (distributed solution)? IJ: I think that the distributed solution satisfies the P1 requirement (since the information is available somewhere). IJ: Note that neither 9.1 and 9.3 speak about UI or content specifically. RS: It's helpful for the user to know that access keys don't apply all the time. IJ: What is accessibility advantage of in-context presentation of the information? GR: Cognitive. Provide information through icons. Suppose you have a huge document, with 1000 links, of which 56 have accesskeys. It's an unreasonable burden to have someone have to refer to a big list. RS: I think that that's not how people author. People don't create that many accesskeys. IJ: I can see it being convenient (but not P2) to find out bindings while browsing. I don't think that, without in-context information, it would be very difficult for users to have access to binding information through a list alone. DP: I agree. You can look through the list of bindings first for a page (and jump to it, for example). JA: I agree with David. GR: If I get a list of bindings in a different viewport, as I user, I have to carry the information in my head back to the initial viewport. I think it makes it more difficult for users with cognitive disabilities. JG: Is WCAG suggesting keyboard shortcuts to help users with cognitive disabilities? GR: There's cognitive disconnect every time you have a new viewport. JA: I think that in WCAG, I think visual notification that there is a shortcut. If there is a visual indicator in-context, that's important. IJ: I'm hearing, now, that for cognitive, it's important to know in context. JG: Who feels that list alone is the only min P2 requirement for 9.3? JA, DP, RS, EH, TL, JG, IJ Resolved: a) For 9.3, min req is that all information about author-specified input configs be availble in a single place. (Need to define clearly what "in a single place" means, or what "distributed solution" means). For example, a list of bindings would satisfy the requirement. b) For 9.1, (which is P1), distributed solution ok (e.g., information available in menus). Note that if the default config is the current config (and user can't change), then 10.3 requirement ensures that 9.1 is satisfied. c) Do not add in-context rendering as a P3 checkpoint. d) Add in-context rendering and configurability to techniques. JG: Do we have implementation experience with this? IJ: Can use style sheets for this. RS: It's easy to implement this with information from the DOM. IJ: Imagine binding a shortcut view with the current viewport, and the shortcut view is updated automatically as the current viewport changes. 7.Issue #424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input? http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#424 TL: There are tons of these: mouse-overs. JG/TL: I wouldn't call these shortcuts. TL: I think that this is an authoring issue. IJ: If mouse behaviors done through scripting, then let's broaden the question: what author-specified bindings are required? What about what's done through scripts? TL: I think that the answer to issue 424 is "no". Resolved: a) Presentation of information about bindings achieved through scripts are not required by checkpoint 9.3. b) Don't say explicitly that mouse bindings are excluded (although today, we don't think markup languages let you specify mouse bindings). 8.Issue #425: Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4 http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#425 Resolved: a) In 9.5, highlight differences from 9.4: only about the keyboard and only about single-key access. 9.Issue #426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#426 Resolved: a) Add a note to 9.8 that says that there are no min requirements for binding complexity by default. Instead, configuration requirements for bindings covered in 9.4 and 9.5. b) Move checkpoint 9.8 "closer" to checkpoints 9.4 and 9.5. 10.Issue #427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#427 Resolved: a) No change. WCAG 1.0 does not require HTML to conform. 11.Issue #428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4) http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#428 Resolved: a) Add techniques to 10.5 suggesting linking from documentation required by 10.4. b) In checkpoints 10.2 and 10.4 and in G6 title, change "promote accessibility" to "benefit accessibility". c) Remove "at a minimum" from techniques for 10.5. d) Refer to GR's objection about documentation priority level for techniques for 10.5. 12.Issue #429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences. http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#429 IJ: I think we are covered as part of 1.2. JG: This could be a requirement for another version. We could include in techniques today that providing this information through an API is useful for communication with ATs. IJ: We require profiles, but no guarantee that profiles available to scripting languages. JG: Some of this is done by default. IJ: Should we talk to the DOM WG about this? JG: I don't think that they want to address this sort of issue. IJ: I have a problem requiring an API that isn't designed to promote interoperability. JG: This would clearly be a new requirement. Resolved: a) Add techniques to G5 about communicating preferences to other software. b) Consider for post UAAG 1.0. c) Talk to DOM WG. ============ ACTION ITEMS ============ --------- New --------- Action IJ: Put up UAWG meeting page for meeting week of technical plenary. Link to Plenary meeting page. Action IJ: Update 8.8 techniques. --------- Completed --------- 4.IJ: Ask Jason White for CSS implementation information for emacspeak. Done: Asked Raman. 5.IJ: Publish new implementation report for the meeting Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-IMP-20001113/ 6.IJ: Improve wording of note for 4.14 related to CSS reference Done in 29 December 2000 draft. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20001229 8.IJ: Draft new language for 6.2 Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437.html 10.IJ: Issue 348: Propose new checkpoints with harmonized language about text rendering, selection rendering, etc. Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0459.html 13.IJ: Proposed fixed wording for 7.5 Done in 29 December 2000 draft. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20001229 32.IJ: Evaluate whether silent or invisible rendering has an impact on checkpoints other than 7.5 (search). Done in 29 December 2000 draft. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20001229 35.JG: Schedule face-to-face time with other WGs (need to contact voice and mobile) JG: We have preliminary info for CSS/DOM. 37.JG: Propose resolution of issue 421 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0447.html ---- Open ---- 1.WG: look for user agents that implement mouse events like mouse over 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 7.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question (equivalence, text element, etc.) 9.IJ: Issue 327: Get wording from Martin on charset API requirement. Request sent to Martin, awaiting reply. 11.IJ: Propose new checkpoints/modified checkpoints for 8.2. 12.IJ: Add some more explanation about the difference between 7.3 and 7.4. 14.IJ: Add to techniques a link to Adobe's accessible PDF information. 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 1.1. 18.IJ: Proposed text in 2.1 19.IJ: Add a note to 5.8 - content requirements may also apply to user interface 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 22.IJ: a) clarify "recognize style" in checkpoints 4.5 b) need more rationale - 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 automatically close 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 sub-viewports 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.IJ: Put a note in the definition of active element that this does not include selection. (optional clarification note) 31.IJ: Include selection and focus in note after 1.1 as examples of what must be done. 33.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2 34.JG: Propose a list of things we are expecting UAs to recognize in scripts. 36.JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same synthesizer engine. 38.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation information 39.GR: Talk to Håkon about CSS support. 40.GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning 41.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation information 42.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the techniques document based on OpenBook. 43.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, 4 January 2001 16:02:54 UTC