- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:03:36 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
25 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0114.html
Minutes of previous meeting 22 January:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html
Next meeting: 1 February
Possible regrets: Mickey Quenzer
Present:
Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Harvey Bingham, David Poehlman,
Al Gilman, Charles McCathieNevile, Eric Hansen, Tim Lacy, Greg
Lowney, Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Kitch Barnicle, Denis Anson, Jim Allan, Gregory Rosmaita
Absent:
Mickey Quenzer
-------------
Announcements
-------------
- Today is HB's birthday!
- Will be attending ftf (from this call): HB, JG, IJ, AG (part-time)
Also: RS, KB(?), EH(?)
No: JA, DP
Don't know: DA
-------
ISSUES
-------
2.Issue 452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?)
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#452
Resolved:
- Adopt Ian's proposal with clarifications that user input is
"completed" when the user says so.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0111.html
- Add techniques based on the WCAG comments.
The UA may offer other techniques to double or triple
time intervals, which may also be useful.
----------------------------------------------
AG reading comments from Gregg Vanderheiden:
"you need to provide more options for companies: three option
approach").
IJ: We chose "infinite" as the minimal requirement to be
sure that the user has enough time. The other options may be
nice but exceed the minimal requirement.
AG: I think that GV is responding from the perspective of
preventing a denial of service attack. But that's not the
stateless HTTP case. So his considerations may not be
driven by the Web's architecture.
JG: Even with statelessness, your cookie could expire (e.g.,
due to security reasons).
IJ: We talk about client-controlled timing only.
AG: A likely case where you might have timeouts is the
case of voice browsing.
DP: All of my time-out experience has been server-side.
IJ: Should we try to address server-side control? We already
cover client-side control.
AG: That falls into server administration, and the proper solution
is probably to build in more time in the server. You can call this
a content problem (for WCAG) or an HTTP problem (for PF). The
protocol by which you ask for more time should be in HTTP or
CC/PP. You don't want this on a page-by-page basis. You want a
generic macro.
AG: Another client-side control scenario is periodic refresh.
JG: So say to reviewer that some of his concerns about time
extensions are server-side issues.
----------
For definition of "presentation":
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0119.html
Resolved from Ian's proposal.
- Delete the term "presentation" from the glossary
- Leave 3.2 as is, change content label to Image.
- Delete checkpoint 3.4 since we aren't aware of
blinking images on the Web.
/* GL and TL join */
------------------
1.Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective
fashion.
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#389
Status: I wrote the reviewer with clarifications and asked for
comment. No response yet.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0038.html
Proposed resolution by IJ: We have reduced some of the conformance
requirements as a result of the reviewer's comments. We have worked
very hard on this conformance scheme and rejected a number of
others. If the reviewer has specific suggestions, we will consider
them.
GL: My concerns about conformance to the document:
- The checkpoint wording is so broad that it's very difficult
to understand what it means unless you refer to notes,
techniques.
- If the document had been less ambiguous, I would not have had
as many questions.
- I don't believe it's possible to define something that's
objectively measurable in terms of conformance without getting
technology-specific. What you have is probably as good as you
can get and still be platform-independent.
- You need techniques documents for specific technologies (e.g.,
HTML, or some other implementation strategy).
- That's how the Microsoft guidelines will evolve: general
guidelines, accompanied by technology specific complementary
documents.
- Having the UAAG 1.0 be the only thing you can conform to
is problematic.
JG: Will people want to say they conform to UAAG 1.0?
GL: I don't see that at the current time it is interesting.
I think the impetus to conformance could be applied by
outside organizations. But I don't think the impetus is
there today from vendors.
GL: I can imagine user organizations (e.g., NFB) as well
lobbying a manufacturer for implementation of the Guidelines.
Guidelines are effective for this. Clear conformance levels
would allow manufacturers who do wish to try to conform to
make appropriate decisions about how to do this.
GL: Vendors may have incentive to interpret checkpoints minimally.
That would mean that vendors might not satisfy the spirit
of the guidelines.
AG: Your prognosis is that the technology-independent statement
of the checkpoints will make conformance difficult.
GL: I think that conformance needs to be measurable and thus
you have to be very specific. Especially for an implementor
who is not an expert in the field. I think you need
technology-specific bindings to be more effective.
IJ: My prognostic is negative that we will have the time
to do the technology-specific bindings at this point.
The WCAG WG is working on this problem specifically.
GL: My comments are suggestions, and I realize that some of
them may not be realistic. If your goal is measurable
conformance, though, I don't think you can achieve it with
a document that is technology independent. Maybe it suffices
to warn the reader of the document of this.
JG: Note that we have used the document to try to determine
conformance of some user agents. The most difficult requirements
to verify are those related to communication with other
software. Did you have this feeling as well?
GL: I think that you are the wrong people to test the document
since you understand it. I compared the document's definition
of keyboard access v. yours. It was hard for me to determine
whether your definition said the same thing as mine. In some
cases, it was not clear to me which checkpoints applied to
some cases I had in my head.
GL: It would be nice to mention in checkpoints what you expect
the checkpoints to cover.
GL: Certainly, the API requirements would require platform-specific
testing tools. I don't think that your WG would be producing
those tools. It's a problem we're struggling with as well.
We are trying to develop more general testing tools. There's
a technical problem in evaluating conformance to the API
requirements. There's a definitional problem of how an
uninformed person would evaluate the checkpoints.
DP: The issues are so numerous and the applications are so broad.
There is lots of discussion on the interest group list about
how the document is not designed for those without technical
expertise.
GL: I think that in the long term, the field needs to come up
with tools that offload the verification tasks from the user,
especially the non-expert user. Tools need to make
accessible tools automatic, but we also need validation
tools that don't require expertise in order to be useful.
They need to allow a novice software tester to generate
a list of issues that can be turned into action items.
/* Rich joins */
GL: It would be interesting to have three people evaluate a
user agent (including one who is not in the WG) and see
what they come up with.
Action GL: Ask someone from Microsoft whether they will
evaluate the guidelines with a product. Deadline one week.
/* Another issue */
GL: I thought that forward navigation alone was insufficient
for minimal navigation through active elements.
JG: We hope UAs will do more, but the minimum was forward
sequential navigation.
IJ: We have two checkpoints: sequential navigation and
structured navigation (which subsumes direct navigation).
Our structured navigation relies to a large extent on the
format.
GL: Because "important elements" is not defined, is it possible
for a UA to claim conformance that doesn't meet the spirit of
it?
IJ: What would you say if I asked you (GL) if you objected
to moving forward with the current conformance stuff?
GL: I think that you should clarify that the document is
subject to interpretation.
AG: I have the same feeling as GL: this document is worth
publishing for guidelines. We will confuse people if we
say "test to this docuement" instead of "design to
this document"
GL: It would be good to have testing experience to see how to
move forward with testability in future versions.
GL: My experience is having designed guidelines in the past
and having designed standards in the past. When random
companies try to conform to a published standard, they will
ask for clarification over and over again. The only way
to deal with that in practice is to be more and more specific
in complementary materials (FAQs, etc.) and to make explicit
points that were initially implicit.
JG: I think WAI EO will be crucial to this effort.
GL: I think that the techniques document will be most
useful for developers trying to do work.
Resolved:
- We expect to test the usability of the document per this
discussion.
- We may add some verbiage to the document about "design to"
v. "test to", but that will depend on the results of our
testing.
Action IJ: Coordinate usability testing of the guidelines.
/* TL leaves */
-------------------
3.Issue 454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1?
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#454
Refer to proposal from JG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0117.html
JG: I would be more comfortable raising refresh to P1 if we
had implementation experience.
DP: Lynx lets you do manual refresh.
GL: Don't know whether IE allows user to stop auto-refresh.
DP: Yes you can lose data if the refresh rate is too short.
I've had this experience where I've been reading along and
a page was yanked out from under my feet. However, if you
don't update the page, you lose data in-between when you start
updating the page and when you actually do.
GL: Note that client-side redirect (3.6) often breaks the back
functionality. If you are on page A and you go to page B which
takes you to C, then going back to "B" may be fatal since you
are taken to C immediately.
DP: You can use the history to go back to in this case.
IJ: This problem affects everyone, doesn't seem to be just about
accessibility.
IJ: I think that redirect should be done on the server side.
Therefore, 3.6 is something of a repair checkpoint.
Resolved:
- (3.6) Redirect is P2 (author didn't intend user to see this page)
- (3.7) Refresh is P1 (author meant user to have content).
- Clarify that 3.7 (like 3.6) is about client-side driven refreshes.
Delete "author-specified" in 3.6/3.7 and highlight "recognize"
instead.
- Clarify that 3.6 and 3.7 are about pull rather than push.
- Add to techniques to not break "back" when implementing
client-side redirect.
4.Issue 455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of
presentation"?
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#455
5.Issue 456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not
mean system APIs
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#456
6.Issue 457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required:
standard APIs only?
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#457
7.Issue 458: Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an
image map? What is required granularity?
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#458
8.Issue 443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device independent access to pointer
(mouse) specific events.
Source:
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#443
Status: The document currently requires emulation of mouse-specific
controls by virtue of our requirement that the user must be able to do
everything through the mouse.
Discussion:
a) Do we want to require the UA to repair device-specific bindings
specified by the author?
b) Do we have evidence that the ability to simulate mouse events
through the keyboard benefits the user?
-----------------
Completed Actions
-----------------
Resolved actions from Ian:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0120.html
15.DP: Send information on programmable objects based on security
options in IE
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html
Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0134.html
14.AG: Consult Trace Institute and reply to UAWG about what the
requirement should be for checkpoint 2.6.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html
Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0135.html
------------
Open Actions
------------
4.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question
(equivalence, text element, etc.)
8.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.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
9.JG: Send screen shots of directional techniqes
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
10.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2
11.JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech
implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same
synthesizer engine.
12.JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the
next version of the document
13.JG: Request input on the resolution of issue 454
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html
16.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation information
17.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation information
18.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the
techniques document based on OpenBook. (deadline open)
19.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, 25 January 2001 16:03:39 UTC