Raw minutes from 15 November UAWG teleconference

15 November 2001 UAWG teleconference

Agenda announcement: 
Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Tim Lacy,
Jim Allan, Harvey Bingham, Lee Bateman, Katie Haritos-Shea

Absent: Gregory Rosmaita, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Eric Hansen
Mickey Quenzer, Denis Anson, David Poehlman

Previous meeting: 1 November 2001

Next meeting: 29 November (22 Nov is Thanksgiving).
  Note: We will use IRC as well for the next meeting:
    Server:  irc.w3.org (port 6665)
    Channel: #ua

Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:

/* Jon on minutes */

Action JA: Send info on changing ALT text and pop up window text size
to the list

TL: There are some legacy boxes that mighht have problems

JA: I don't know much about JavaScript, but OS seems to do the drawing

TL: The stuff is in OS dlls.  A developer does custom control, they
may break some of the accessibility

JA: How does the mac do it

TL: I don't know

JG: Apple stuff doesn't seem to work

1. Charter update

JG: There no real news.  We will recharter soon, Judy and Ian will
draft new charter for group approval.

HB: We should look seriously at more vendor participation.

JG: We can't force people to participate.

HB: Assistive technology vendors??

JG: We have some good relationships with AT developers

HB: TL in the new XP release, that there is less need for AT

TL: The MSAA version provided more information about documents.  I
don't think they replace ATs.  I can't say they do not replace.

2. 508 and UAAG comparison

JA: Katie and I have been working on it.  She has trouble getting
connected.  More stuff soon.

JG: I think work into the comparison and the implement report.

/* IJ on minutes */

3. Implementation Report

JG: I hope to update it over the next couple of weeks. We need to
include more detailed info in the report, and ensure it's correct.

4. Test Suites

IJ: I attended the QAWG's first meeting. Not much to report
(other than the meeting was useful).

5. Strategy, document future

IJ: We need to talk about where the document should go since our
initial plans are not working out as planned. This is a W3C-wide
issue: should all Recommendations have widespread implementation, or
may some be forward-looking and become Recs even if they do not have
substantial support from developers? (This is a more general issue for
W3C; change over the past couple of years has been towards requiring
consequential buy-in before Rec.) We need to consider strategies for
moving forward.

/* Lee leaves */

JG: We have a lot of requirements that are already implemented. We
might not need to change requirements significantly, only allow more
flexibility in meeting them. (JG gives example of caption placement
control, checkpoint 4.6, as a place where we might relax

IJ: I'm less interested in immediate conformance by UAs, and more
interested in hearing developers say, "Yes, we can/will do that"
instead of "There are too many requirements, so we won't do any of
them." We can sit in Candidate Recommendation and wait until there is
greater demand for the document.

/* Katie joins */

TL: We motivate people (usually with business case) and try to make it
easier for people to do these things. Having UAAG 1.0 to show product
groups is handy to convince them of a particular direction.

JG: Is the document as is helpful to you (TL) within Microsoft (as
opposed to say, changing the requirements)?

TL: From a technical perspective, there's nothing in the document
that's particularly difficult to do. Where we get a lot of resistence
internally have to do with areas where architecture was chosen a long
time ago. Huge amounts of code would have to be ripped out and

JG summarizing some options:

 - Forge ahead as is, collecting implementation experience (even if
   slowly). This might involve staying in CR for some time, which is

 - Modify some of our requirements (e.g., by lowering priorities,
   changing conformance granularity, etc.).

JA: Not sure whether we should lower the bar or maintain it. I think
we need more discusson on this.

HB: We have been optimistic. I've thought for some time we might need
to move some items to the deferred list.

JG: We need to be clear about the impact of our decisions (e.g.,
relation to 508).

TL: We should have a beta with new features in about 5 weeks. That
should help.

HB: Do beta releases count for satisfying our requirements?

JG: I think there's some flexibility. 

Completed Action Items
IJ: Add to "How to Evaluate" information about "how to rate whether a
agent satisfies a checkpoint"

IJ: Add definition of user agent while an independent document.

Open Action Items

JG: Review Netscape version 6.X

JG: Review "How to Evaluate a user agent for conformance to UAAG 1.0"

TL: Review initial implementation report for IE and comment

KHS and JA: Continue to work on the comparison document with Jim Allan

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 15:07:13 UTC