Raw minutes of 26 July UAWG teleconference

26 July 2001 UAWG teleconference

Agenda announcement: 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0151
 
Participants: Ian Jacobs (Chair, Scribe), David Poehlman, 
Mickey Quenzer, Harvey Bingham, Gregory Rosmaita

Absent: Denis Anson, Jim Allan, Tim Lacy, Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Jon Gunderson, Eric Hansen

Previous meeting: 19 July 2001
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0136

Next meeting: 9 August
  Regrets: MQ

Vacation schedules

 IJ: Not available 16, 23 August
 MQ: Not available 2, 9 August
 HB: Not available 30 August
 DP: Always available!

Reference document: 14 July draft:
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010714/
 
====================================================================

Agenda:

0) Please register for face-to-face meeting 13-14 September
   http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=UAWGsep2001

   Action IJ: Find out about whether a bridge will be available.
   Action IJ: Ask Geoff Freed to attend ftf.

   DP: Get Inhouse Radio Networks (Mike Calvo) to attend/ help in CR.
   IJ: Do they know about our voice browser work at W3C?

1) Getting closure on issue 516: Time-independent user input.
   http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#516

  Refer to summary from Ian:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0152

  GR: Like Denis, I think that the context / order is important.

  IJ: I spoke with AB about this. He was of the opinion that 
  for some content, the simple document order would be useful (e.g.,
  a SMIL presentation with links).

  GR: Consider talking sign technlogy (with infrared beam). 

  DP: The model is useful for presentation modes. The goal is to
  present the information in a way that allows the user to understand
  the purpose of the interaction, and the content being conveyed.

  IJ: I think it might suffice to provide both a "regular"
  presentation and a static rendering: that would satisfy the
  requirement to provide access (and the regular presentation would
  convey the content). Admittedly, this is less ideal than in-context
  interaction.

  DP: The static view addresses the issue of granularity.

  Resolved: We wish 2.4 to say:

    1) This applies to content where user interaction is
time-dependent    
       [Only applies for time intervals controlled by the UA.]
    2) The requirement is to present the content in a manner where 
       user interaction is time-independent. 
    3) Ideally: change the presentation as little as possible
    4) Some techniques:
         * Manual pause and step through.
         * Some mix of auto and manual pausing
         * A static rendering (with order preserved, and
           the ability to see the results of interaction in
           another view).
    5) If pausing techniques are used:
       a) Lost packets for real-time content received during
          pause may be discarded. The user agent should let
          the user know that packets may be discarded in this config.
       b) When presentation is paused automatically, must alert
          the user and highliglht which enabled elements are
          time-sensitive and may no longer be available on resume.
       c) Once paused, allow the user to resume manually.

   Action IJ: Write this up for WG, to include in next draft.
   Inform SVG WG of this resolution.

2) Getting closure on font size, font family, text decoration, and
   color resources (checkpoints 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 10.2, 10.4)

   Resolved: Maintain two-level cascade:
       a) Minimal range is that offered by conventional
          utilities for choosing font size, font family,
          color, etc. on operating
          environments where such a utility exists.
       b) Make clear that the it's clear that this higher
          layer may reduce the range the system is capable of.
       c) On systems without such a utility, the range must
          be that offered by the conventional text draw APIs
          of the operating environment.

3) Candidate Recommendation issues:

 a) Structure of face-to-face meeting at Microsoft.
    Please register if you haven't already:

   Some ideas?
    * Demos
    * Answer developer questions about whether a technique
      is sufficient.
    * Deciding test cases for a test suite.

   DP: What about discussing "what's next?"

   IJ: Sure, but I think getting UAAG 1.0 to Rec is the
   most important thing right now.
     
   http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=UAWGsep2001

 b) Implementation report.

  - Need contacts with developers.
  - Need to do testing, evaluation


4) Structure of the document.

  GR: I don't think that the titles are useful. Some are not good,
     either.

  IJ: I don't expect to change the document except upon seeing a
  proposal.
  

----------------------
Continued action items
----------------------

Action IJ: Return to Judy and Janet with re-scheduling.
Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0136

Action IJ: Talk to Dean Jackson and write a proposal for this.
Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0136

---------
Completed
---------

JG: Propose new language for checkpoints 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
10.2, and 10.4 based on a cascade in each case that starts with
user dialog, then system limitations.

TL: Write to WMP people at Microsoft to get someone to attend

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 15:45:32 UTC