- 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