- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:59:35 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
1 November 2001 UAWG teleconference
Agenda announcement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0046
Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
Tim Lacy, Harvey Bingham, Katie Haritos-Shea, Denis Anson,
Eric Hansen
Regrets: David Poehlman, Jim Allan
Absent: Gregory Rosmaita, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Lee Bateman,
Mickey Quenzer
Previous meeting: 22-23 October 2001 face-to-face
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/minutes-20011022
Next meeting: 15 November
[8 November cancelled.]
Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/
====================================================================
-----------------------
508 and UAAG comparison
-----------------------
Refer to mail from Jim/Katie:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0050
and comparision table:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/508/508-UAAG
KHS: Your comments welcome. We are still working on this and I expect
it to change substantially by next week.
IJ: Note that "consistent bitmap usage" requirement is part of OS
guidelines.
TL: Yes, that's the case for Windows.
IJ: Thus, covered as part of 7.3.
IJ: Please:
- Make this look like a technical report.
- Change "UAAG Techniques" to "UAAG 1.0 Requirements"
- Get rid of table; I get no information out of the vertical
relationships.
- Please indicate in status section that this is a draft and
that this doesn't represent consensus and that this should
not be used as a normative reference.
JG: I'd like to see relationships in both directions (508 to UAAG 1.0
and vice versa).
Action KHS: Continue to work on the comparison document with Jim Allan.
----------------------------------------
Next steps in the recommendation process
----------------------------------------
JG: Our charter expired yesterday. We will be rechartering to
reflect our current position and timelines. Judy and I will bring
charter to WG.
IJ: We have the AC meeting next week; we apologize in advance for
delays.
IJ: We said upon entering CR that we would require three months. Right
now, what's the expectation of the WG? Are people ok with continuing
on this path until the end of December?
Resolved:
- People are ok to continue in the same direction for now.
-------------
Business case
-------------
IJ: Judy and I are strategizing. No public document yet. If you have
ideas (e.g., general or on a per-checkpoint basis) please send to the
list.
IJ: Note that some of the benefits will be about accessibility, while
other will be about side benefits. I would like any business case to
not only be about side benefits to implementing accessibility
features.
---------------------------------------------------
Test suites and other technical deliverables update
---------------------------------------------------
Refer to:
"Notes on discretionary behavior in
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/ts
and
"How to evaluate a user agent for conformance to UAAG 1.0"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/eval
DA: About the "how to", there are a lot of items that require
discussion with developers. The problem with that approach is that
developers may support a functionality in an unusable way.
JG: The review process should also document how a feature is
implemented. For example, it's possible with Quicktime Pro to
reposition captions, but the process of doing it is probably beyond
the capability of most users. Something may be technical possibly, but
not really functionally possible.
IJ: So let's add a section to how to evaluate "What do I do when I
don't know / when I have to draw the line?"
JG: Also, the implementation report includes different rating system,
please mention this in the how to evaluate. Also, indicate that people
should include notes for others.
IJ: I'd like to incorporate "How to evaluate" in UAAG 1.0, e.g., as an
appendix.
Action IJ:
- Add to "How to Evaluate" information about "how to rate whether a
user agent satisfies a checkpoint"
- Add definition of user agent while an independent document.
Action JG: Review "How to Evaluate a user agent for conformance to
UAAG 1.0"
----------------------------
Implementation Report Update
----------------------------
JG: Need reports for Mac and Unix. Who wants to look at some
additional user agents this week?
/* No takers */
IJ: I will be talking to Konqueror browsers developers. They have
apparently started implementing some of our features. I will be
pointing them to our implementation report and asking them to
implement ones we have no experience for.
=================
Completed actions
=================
1.IJ: Contact Lofton Henderson, Chris Lilley, John Ferraiolo, Karl
Dubost Aaron Leventhal ,and Jonny Axelsson about participating in FTF
meeting
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0021
Done: Meeting held.
2.JG: Contact Glenn Gordon, Aaron Smith, Randy Marsden, and Mark
Nelson about participating in FTF meeting
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0021
Done: Meeting held.
3.JG: Talk about JG's tool and EARL integration at WAI CG.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0188
JG: Will continue to talk with him.
5.JA: Work on a comparison document of UAAG and Section 508 and format
in UAAG style (see Ian's comparison:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0561)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0272
Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0050
=================
Open actions
=================
4.JG: Review Netscape version 6.X
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0191
6.TL: Review initial implementation report for IE and comment
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0191
TL: I've handed to Rob Relyea. Still on it.
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 15:02:14 UTC