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

Raw minutes from 30 August 2001 UAWG teleconf (Agreement to request CR)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:02:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3B8E9BC9.4CA37346@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
30 August 2001 UAWG teleconference

Agenda announcement: 
Participants: Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Gregory Rosmaita,
Denis Anson, David Poehlman, Mickey Quenzer, 
Loretta Reid (Adobe), Jim Allen, Chris Lilley.

Regrets: Tim Lacy, Eric Hansen

Absent: Harvey Bingham, Rich Schwerdtfeger

Previous meeting: 23 August 2001

Next meeting: 6 September

Reference document: 13 July draft:


1.User Agent FTF Meeting at Microsoft on 13-14 September 2001 hosted
by Microsoft (Redmond, WA). Please register if you have not 

Meeting page:

JG: Please review the agenda!


1.SVG comments on UAWG response to their last call comments:

CL: The SVG WG spent its teleconf today discussing UAAG 1.0.

1) We agree with the resolution that an icon represents an unverified

2) We think conformance granularity is weird.

 - Different specs have different levels of conformance.
 - There is a core, but it's unnamed.

/* IJ discusses conformance */

CL: Well-argued. I'm satisfied.

3) CL: We have a question about multiple views. If you have an SVG
browser that displays a visual rendering, and you have a separate view
with synthesized speech output, do the two views have to be

IJ: Views that are not based on author-synchronization do not have to
be synchronized. Please indicate text where this is confusing.

4) CL: We were unimpressed by the response to C.7.

IJ: We don't require that they have all captions at once. Only that
all of them be available. We do not have a general requirement that
every piece of conditional content be available at the same time as
every other piece of conditional content (and no other piece, for

JG: We say follow specs first. 

CL: I'm satisfied if there is not a per-element requirement.

CL: Why do you have a 3.1 for background images and not background

IJ: We discussed this and arrived at this trade-off.

GR: At a P1 level, you have control over speech synthesize
volume. It's not optimal, but it's a solution.

GR: Please include "background sound interference" in limitations

IJ: Background sound is just sound (since the audio space is only
one-dimensional). We have a requirement to control synchronized

GR: Please say in document that sounds started on load are implicitly
synchronized with other sounds that are played automatically later.

  Action IJ: Add this to techniques document.

5) 6.1/6.2: DOM is required.

CL: Clarification that DOM Core / CSS modules required.

IJ: Right.

6) You have to implement the DOM for XML/HTML?

IJ: Yes, for interoperability.

CL: If you are a static conforming SVG UA, you don't
have to have a DOM (e.g., a printer).

IJ: In the case of a printer, there is no user, so we
don't care.

GR: When we decided to label style content with P2 requirements, it
was based on WCAG 1.0 expectations.

7) Timely access (checkpoint 6.9).

CL: Text dump seems to not provide timely access, but DOM does. Is
that the case? We still think that this checkpoint is vague.

JG: More than that: even if DOM used, need timely access to DOM
messages. Timeliness depends on platform as well.

CL: I think we were more uncertain about the intention of this

IJ: This is relevant to changes in content as well as changes to the
user interface.

IJ: What does "timely" mean in the case of a static view?

DA: You should never be waiting for the Assistive Technology.

DP: Right, the AT should never have to wait for the process to finish
to do its work.

JG: I think we've spent enough time on this. We want to communicate
that care must be taken in the choice of APIs, etc.

GR: User shouldn't have to slow down because AT has to wait.


CL: I will write up the rest of the comments (as this was the WG's
decision). We don't want to hold up UAAG 1.0; we encourage advancing
to CR (to validate code size, footprint, etc.). SVG developers are
taking this seriously.

IJ: I'd like to continue to interact with the SVG WG during CR.

CL: I will be attending one day of your ftf meeting in Redmond. I
agree that we need to get SVG developers involved. 

IJ: I would like to use test suites as a way to help developers and be
format specific.


  CL: Please decide, then whether to go to CR. I'm satisfied on behalf
  of the SVG WG.

2. Going to CR

JG: We needed to respond to all comments. Chris' participation today
closes that loop. We can now decide whether to go to CR. We need to:
 a) Have a revised document [done]

 b) Have closed the loop with last call reviewers  [done]

 c) Document objections [done]

 d) Have an implementation report [in progress]

 e) Have a sense of duration of CR (3-3.5 months).
    IJ: Time required depends rather heavily on commitment
    from developers to do these things.
    JG: We can rely on developers, but also create demos ourselves.
    The question of "who is going to do these things" is important.

    MQ, DA: I agree that it's better to advance to CR and get
    developer support.

 f) CR exit criteria.

    IJ: We need more than toy implementations.

    IJ: I think we should establish criteria that some piece of
    nontrivial software implements each feature. Only one
    implementation required, but we should show interoperability.

    DP: We should say that we are looking at components.

    IJ: I think we have improved this in section 3 since
    the last call draft.

 The UAWG agrees to request that the Director advance UAAG 1.0 to CR.

/* Denis leaves */

IJ: I have made a couple of changes since 31 July draft.

 - Changes to 2.4 based on Al Gilman comments.
   UAWG: Ok.

 - Fast advance/rewind v. direct access. Is serial access required
   or is direct sufficient?

   GR: I prefer "fast forward" instead of "fast advance".
   I think serial and direct are both required.

   DP: In order for direct to meet the same criteria as serial, you
   need to be able to go some place without knowing where you're
   going. You also need to have small granularity. That's where
   rewind and reverse are useful.


   - Requirement is rapid access.
   - Direct or serial access are both sufficient.
   - Best solution is to offer both.

 Action IJ: I will send proposed text to the WG for comment until 12
 midnight tonight. I expect to request to advance to CR

Completed Action Items

3.JG: Set telecon times - AT compatibility and Multimedia

Status: Refer to ftf meeting agenda:

Open Action Items

1.JG: Talk about JG's tool and EARL integration at WAI CG.

Status: Not done.

2.JG: Netscape version 6.X (newest) by next Tuesday

Status: Not done.

4.DP and GR: Review Webspeakster

DP: I haven't written anything. The problem is that it crashes my

GR: I'm having the same problems with it.

5.GR: Contact Dolphin
 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0188

Status: Not done, but GR will contact them now that agenda is

6.TL: Review initial implementation report for IE and comment
 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0191

7.JA: Review Real media player by next Tuesday.

IJ: I have done a partial review today.
JA: I'll have within an hour.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 16:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:31 UTC