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

Raw minutes from 22 Jan 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:41:38 -0500
Message-ID: <3A6C9B02.7FF2A9E6@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
22 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference


Minutes of previous meeting 18 January:  

Next meeting: 25 January (regular meeting).
    Possible regrets: Eric Hansen

Following meeting: 1 February 
    Possible regrets: Mickey Quenzer

   Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Mickey Quenzer,
   Al Gilman, Harvey Bingham, David Poehlman, Eric Hansen
Regrets: Charles McCathieNevile

     Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita, Kitch Barnicle, Jim Allan


4.Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is 
  checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]

  Refer to proposal from IJ:

  AG: I'm uncomfortable with the Note (may follow up).
  IJ: I think that user modification of author style sheets doesn't
  respect the intended cascade mechanisms.

  EH: I think I agree with Ian's argument.

  JG: Often, real browsers let you modify the computed value.
  Resolved: No change to the DOM 2 style requirement.

5.Issue 450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions 
  should it follow?

   Proposed: Change "operating system" to "operating system and
   language" globally.

   AG: I don't think that that's the solution. I think that the 
   developer should be allowed to choose between, say, a Java
   solution and a Windows solution. But once they pick, they
   have to follow through and use the conventions.

   JG: When writing for java, the "os" conventions are the 
   java virtual machine.

   AG: I think that you should probably say "language or OS" if
   the jvm is an option. 

   IJ: Does java have "standard APIs for the keyboard"?

   AG: Not sure, but I think so.

   AG: "Environment conventions". In the glossary, make clear that
   operating system is one option, jvm is another.
     - Add "environment conventions" to the glossary.
     - Global change of OS conventions to environment conventions.
  Action IJ: Implement "environment conventions" changes.

 6.Issue 451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just 
   null alt

   Resolved: Yes, we think we've generalized it as much as we
   can. UAAG 1.0 is based on WCAG 1.0. We would rather have developers
   meet critical needs today. May explore even more general
   requirement in another UAAG draft. We hope that in the future,
   formats will allow us to do more.

 7.Issue 452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three

   JG: The presentation is anything that's going on. This is not just
   about a single link, for example. How does this interact with our
   video/audio slow requirements?

   Action AG: Consult Trace Institute and reply to UAWG about what
   the requirement should be for checkpoint 2.6.

   DP: Check out their kiosk model.


 8.Issue 453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects"

   IJ: Two questions:
     - Do we add plug-ins? (not author-supplied content)
     - Do we generalize to programmatic objects?

   AG: If you put an activeX control in the content, would that be
    an "applet" or some other programmatic object? I think that 
   "programmatic object" is a valid generic term. "Scripts and
   applets" don't cover the entire space.
   AG: You may want dynamic control, even for plug-ins. You may
   want a plug-in installed, but not used in a particular case.
   Should the user have page-by-page control over plug-in
   functionality? [What's the granularity of this requirement?]
   IJ: In other words, is this a request for a per-resource
   control requirement? Is the requirement "Allow users to
   uninstall plug-ins?" We don't have any install requirements.

   JG: I'm not sure we have implementation experience for ocx

   IJ: What's the difference between style sheets and a programmatic

   DP: In IE security settings, there are a lot of things you can
   turn off (including ActiveX controls), or set the settings to
   "safe". Even download actions. I'm in favor of the broader

   AG: If we use the broader statement, we may not have enough
   implementation. If we use the narrower statement, we may not
   ensure that the user's needs are not sufficiently covered

   MQ: I think that since we don't know what we're expanding the
   checkpoint to, we should leave it narrower.

   JG: I don't think we should broaden.

   EH: I don't have a strong feeling on this.

   AG: I like "programmatic objects" as a term, but I'm sensitive
   to the concern about implementation experience. I think that
   it's possible to make a crisper statement about what the user's
   need is: programmatic elements that make the interface act
   differently (e.g., a plug-in that changes the interaction
   rules), that there is an accessibility dependency. I'm not sure
   that all programmatic objects cause accessibility problems and 
   thus that the user would need to turn off.

   IJ: Does programmatic object mean "thing that is executed"?

   AG: I think that's the point of this checkpoint, yes.

     - This checkpoint is about global configuration
       related to author-supplied executable content.

     - Adopt "executable content". Change checkpoint to:

       "Allow the user to configure the user agent not to execute 
       executable content (e.g., scripts or applets)." (and edit
       the configuration part appropriately)

     - Add ActiveX controls to techniques.

     - Do not include plug-ins in this checkpoint.

     - Do not add a per-resource "turn off this plug-in" 
       control requirement in this version of the UAAG.

   Action IJ: Modify checkpoint 3.5 appropriately.

 9.Issue 454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1?

   IJ: I sympathize with the reviewer's comment: If the user can't
   get at this content, this is a P1 violation. I think that we didn't
   raise this because checkpoint 2.1 requires access to all content.

   JG: Does that make 3.6/3.7 de facto P1?

   AG: I don't support putting them in Guideline 2. These are more
   about control than data visibility.

   DP: I'm inclined to think that we're covered.

  /* DP leaves */ 

  IJ: What about just pointing to 2.1 and saying that all 
      content must be available?

  AG: Send an issues-specific message to the list. Ask for input
      from the list.

  Action JG: Send a request to the list asking for input
  on this one.   

Action item review

    2.IJ: Add IJ proposed checkpoint for character set API support for 
      issue 324
      (This will be done in the next draft of the guidelines.)

    3.IJ: Ask Philippe Le Hegaret about read only suport for DOM style 
module and alert the WG

    7.JG: Talk to Al Gilman at the next WAI CG meeting about a joint 
meeting with UA, PF, and Voice WG (or participants) to discuss 
accessibility issues.

   12.DP: Send information about tools that allow mouse binding



   14.GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline

    Refer to quicktime pro:


    4.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question 
(equivalence, text element, etc.)

    5.IJ and EH: to review the definition of "presentation" to possibly 
drop URI-dependencies.

    6.IJ and EH: Work on definition of "animation" that identifies 
"animated image" as a special case. Also talks about script effects,
sheets effects, markup
      languages as being able to create animations. (Blinking not part

    8.JG: Send screen shots of directional techniqes

    9.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

   10.JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized
implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same

   11.JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the 
next version of the document

   13.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation

   15.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation

   16.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the 
techniques document based on OpenBook. (deadline open)

   17.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 Monday, 22 January 2001 15:41:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:29 UTC