- 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