- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:28:28 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
8 March 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference
Agenda announcement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0326
Minutes of previous meeting 1-2 March 2001:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
Next meeting: 15 March teleconference
Regrets: Mickey Quenzer (at son's graduation for basic training),
Jon Gunderson, Jim Allan
Present:
Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Harvey Bingham,
David Poehlman, Mickey Quenzer, Tim Lacy, Jim Allan,
Charles, McCathieNevile, Gregory Rosmaita, Eric Hansen,
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Note: I will stop indicating Kitch Barnicle and Denis Anson as either
regrets or absent since they have indicated that they cannot attend
the meeting regularly. I hope you guys will still read the minutes!
----------
Announcements
----------
IJ: New draft will be available in a couple of days.
----------
Discussion
----------
1. Issue 464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not
always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL)
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#464
IJ: Background - E.g., SMIL captions not marked up as such
in captions.
CMN: Rather than change the applicability provision. Instead, I
think it might be useful to generalize some of the specific
requirements (e.g., requirement to position captions). The
implementation requirement doesn't change: you have to move
some to move all. I think the applicability clause should stand.
EH: Is middle ground possible (e.g., referring only to conditional
content)?
JG: What about "potentially for captions"?
IJ: But the SMIL spec doesn't say this. That's how WCAG says
to use it.
CMN: WAI PF wants to identify special relationships; but we can't at
the moment. I don't think this implies a broken model, however.
JG: What other technologies besides SMIL?
CMN: Navigation bars in HTML.
JG: Tim, is this harder to do (in general)?
TL: I can see Charles' point. I would consider the increase in scope
a fair increase in implementation burden. I don't know whether it
would be substantial.
GR: We discussed this at the ftf meeting in Princeton.
IJ: I think that this is a significant change, but the
right one in terms of our document's model. I resist it
due to the scope of the change.
EH: I agree with CMN that we don't need to change the applicability
statement.
/* Checkpoints really in question here from 24 Feb 2001 draft:
2.5, 4.6 */
CMN: Signed captions are video tracks. But still captions.
IJ: Captions not defined that way in our spec. {Limited to text.}
EH: The basic requirement is that if something has a time association,
you have to synchronize them. Unless we want to get into repair
functions, all you can ask is to implement the spec.
Action CMN: Find out from SYMM WG whether repositioning of
objects will appear in the spec (or should be in UAAG).
Some options:
a) Broaden the checkpoints.
b) Don't change the doc, some smil players won't have
to meet these requirements. Wait 'till SMIL specs fixed.
CMN: What PF is likely to come up with: RDF schema (e.g.,
W3C Note).
Leave spec as is.: TL, MQ, RS, JA, HB, EH, IJ
/* RS joins */
MQ: In addition to waiting for SMIL, any other groups?
CMN: Quicktime spec...
Broaden the checkpoint: DP, GR, CMN
IJ: It's the right solution, the wrong time for it.
HB: Digital talking book people are referencing SMIL 2.
They are presuming that will be strong enough.
IJ: Looking at Quicktime API, don't see anything specific
to text captions.
JA: This is called "Text stream"
TL: Nothing in HTML+Time to identify captions as such.
IJ: Proposal: add a P3 requirement for all objects.
CMN: I'd still write a minority opinion.
EH: It's a little strange to leave the checkpoint as is if
checkpoints 2.5 and 4.6 are not applicable. Does this
call for material in the introduction?
CMN: The original proposal at this meeting was to adjust the
applicability provision to special case this particular
requirement. But I think that's the wrong way to go
about it.
Resolved:
- No change to the document.
- People can file objections.
2. Issue 463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other
specifications
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#463
Resolved:
- Issue closed (not relevant to advancing of the document).
- No change to the document unless later proposal.
Action IJ: Take to the cross-WG WAI list.
3. Issue 462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh
(3.5) and redirection (3.6)
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#462
IJ: Read my arguments for not changing the document.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0159
CMN: One reason to change: the priority to be able to go back
through things is closely related to the priority of the
functionality. I'm not convinced that the user can tell the
difference.
IJ: Yes to the user the same, but the UA developer may have
to implement different behaviors.
Resolved:
- No change to the document (do not merge checkpoints).
5. Issue 430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#430
See CMN's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0306
See IJ's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0352
EH: Is interactivity included?
IJ: For example, what if I reload the W3C home page over time?
TL: If you're requesting a refresh, that's a different class
of thing. I don't think we should define at what rate a
refresh becomes an animation. I don't think interactivity should
be included in what constitutes an animation.
/* MQ leaves, TL leaves */
CMN: I would argue that stuff that is defined in the page as
triggering the animation falls into this category, but reloading a
page manually does not.
GR: I like IJ's generic definition of animation.
IJ:
* I don't think the definition needs to be rock-solid.
* I would exclude manual interaction from the definition
(other than triggering).
* I think in practice we won't have too many problems
with edge cases "in practice" (people will know what
we mean).
* The important part for me was to use it consistently
in all three checkpoints.
Resolved:
- Adopt proposal (with editorial tweaks as indicated above):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0352
6. Proposed changes to checkpoints related to focus, selection, and
current viewport
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0324
DP: See my question:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0337.html
DP: I think "navigation" says more than the things that replace it.
I'm not sure how to capture "what's missing".
IJ: I don't think that "navigate" says it any better. The term
"navigate" is better at the Guideline level.
GR: It needs to be clear that state persistence is bound to
navigation.
IJ: I think navigation includes pointing device navigation
(e.g., among viewports). But for the purposes of our document,
I think our requirements can be bound to the focus in particular.
DP: What about querying?
IJ: We have requirements for access to content through a viewport.
We call the act of getting that content moving ones point of regard.
DP: If I'm holding the Alt key down in Windows, without letting
it up, am I moving the point of regard?
IJ: Yes, but it's not the POR for very long.
EH: Is POR a time specific view of things?
IJ: It has time and space components.
EH: I like Ian's analysis that went into this. A large editorial
improvement.
IJ: Note, for example, that the highlight requirement does not
require highlighting of the viewport with the pointing device.
But I'm not worried since in practice the pointing device and
keyboard focus are bound anyway.
CMN: I have vague reservations but can't formulate them right now.
IJ: I would also note that I did not want to add pointing device
requirements at this time.
Resolved:
- Adopt proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0324
7. Review of new checkpoints for the accessibility of elements
with event handlers
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
Refer to JG comments about priority of "not activating automatically"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0336
JG: We already have a requirement to turn off scripting altogether
(which would allow one to suppress auto-activation). CMN seemed ok
with a P2.
GR: I think the "all scripting off" requirement is too heavy
a requirement. This is like saying "turn all images off to turn
off background images". I think that this should be a P1
requirement. Refer to GR's questions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0354.html
GR: The only way to get at multiple handlers is to get at the
suspended state.
IJ: I understand JG's comment to be:
- Turning off scripts is a global setting (P1)
- The proposed checkpoint is a per-element requirement (P2)
CMN: Authoring issue (finding out what a script will do).
CMN: I share the part of GR's concern that if you don't know that
something will be activated when you turn scripts back on
that something will happen.
JG: Right, if the UA considers that when scripts are turned off,
an element is no longer an enabled element, then you couldn't
navigate to it...
CMN: My preference is to leave it a P1 (as initially proposed)
rather than play with enabled element definition.
Resolved:
- Leave the new checkpoint for per-element non-auto triggering
of handlers a P1.
IJ: Refer to my question about what is not supposed to happen
in this configuration:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0351
IJ: Note the problem: if you turn off *all input behavior*, then
you lose tabbing navigation, etc.
CMN: You need to catch event bubbling...
IJ: But in our navigation scheme, you only ever land on
"top-level handlers".
CMN: It's an open question how events would be sent down to
elements.
JG: What happens, you don't know.
Resolved:
- The requirement to not fire event handlers
does not involve turning off stylistic effects.
- The requirement is for explicit user input device
event handlers assigned to an element.
{If you want no events fired, turn off scripts.}
- Since we may not know what was assigned by the author,
we'll make no distinction about what was assigned by
the author (or the AT). (In other words, no restriction
about set of event handlers.)
/* JA leaves */
IJ: The DOM won't tell you today which events will trigger which
handlers for all handlers; only those supplied by the author in the
source. We seem, on the other hand, to be requiring turning off of all
event handlers. The sets are different: the set the user sees, the set
that are turned off.
CMN: I have some thoughts on this that I'll talk about on the list.
JG: We need input from Microsoft, Netscape, IBM on this.
8. Review of new checkpoints for speech adjustability
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
[NOT COVERED]
4. Issue 449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#449
[NOT COVERED]
Action IJ: I still have to do this.
------------
Completed Actions
------------
17. GR: Talk to National Tech Center at AFB about possible information
on importance of documentation to users with disabilities.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
GR: I've done this. Sent info from Jay Leventhal to JG, who
should forward to IJ. Also, ask Kitch! Her dissertation
overlaps with this topic.
20. TL: Report to WG on discussions at Microsoft about keyboard
emulation.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0227
------------
Reassigned Actions
------------
15. GL: Ask someone from Microsoft whether they will evaluate the
guidelines with a product.
Deadline: 2/1/2001
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137
TL: I'll follow up
------------
Open Actions
------------
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
2. IJ: Write an executive summary appendix.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0200
3. IJ: Propose text for how other documents should reference UAAG 1.0
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
4. IJ: Distinguish techniques for fast forward versus faster palying
(digital talking books), and point to digital talking books
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
5. IJ: Add a Note to checkpoint 4.4.pointing to applicability
provision about streaming and whether slow/etc.control enabled by
the format.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
7. JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized
speech implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the
same synthesizer engine.
8. JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the
next version of the document
9. JG: Write a proposal related to the expected actions as the result
of triggering events associated with the focused element.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
10. JG: Take to WAI PF the requirement that formats need to provide a
more precise means for specifying events (than HTML allows for).
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
11. JG: Create a wish list of otherrequirements not in UAAG 1.0,
including those that might fall under thisGuideline.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
12. JG: Write up some techniques forcheckpoint on scripts on/off about
subsetting the configuration.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
13. JG: Take to the WAI CG the question ofpursuing the DOM Views and
Formatting module.
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
14. JG: Call Cindy King about formats that support separate windows
for captioning information
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
18. HB: Talk to Geoff Freed (WGBH) about formats that support separate
windows for captioning information
Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
21. RS: Send pointer to information about universal access gateway to
the WG.
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258
22. RS: Write to w3c-wai-ua asking whether,within IE, it's possible to
simulate mouse button events in a way that wouldgenerate an
appropriate event object. Can we get the box from IE.
-------
Dropped
-------
6. JG: Implementation information for guideline 2
16. GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation
information
19. JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation
information
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 16:28:31 UTC