W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2002

Raw minutes from 9 May 2002 UAWG teleconference

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:30:35 -0400
Message-ID: <3CDACE5B.7030800@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 9 May 2002

Agenda announcement:

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), David
Poehlman, Eric Hansen, Tim Lacy, Harvey Bingham, Jim Allan.

Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger

Previous meeting: 25 April 2002

Next meeting: 16 May, 2pm ET.
   Regrets: Jim Allan, Harvey (next 3 weeks)

Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:


Issue 544: Should we delete requirements re: fee links from
UAAG 1.0 since not really part of Web today?

Resolved: Delete fee link requirements since not part of the
           Web today.

Issue 543: [Clarification] 11.5: Forward/back one viewport for 2d
renderings only?

Resolved: Yes, for graphical renderings only.

Issue 542: [Clarification] 11.5: What does "refresh" mean,
notably in light of usage in 3.5


  - Delete "refresh rendering" in 11.5.
  - In 3.5, change:
     * Title: "Toggle automatic content retrieval"
     * s/refresh/retrieve
     * Indicate in 3.5 Note more clearly that META refresh is one
  - In 11.5, change:
     * "Reload resource" is ok.
     * "Interrupt reload request" instead of "Stop loading
      HB: Say that the effect is undefined if you interrupt.

Issue 541: [Clarification] 11.5 (default binding requirements):
Moving UI focus to address box sufficient


  - Clarify that there may be several ways to satisfy this, such
  as by prompting the user, or moving the cursor to the address

Issue 540: [Editorial] 10.8 (indicate rendering progress):
Clarify that not about download progress, but position of

Resolved: This checkpoint is about the viewport's position in
rendered content, not download progress. To avoid confusion:

  - Change title to "Indicate viewport position".
  - State clearly in a Note the checkpoint that this is *not*
    a requirement to indicate download progress.
  - Include a cross-reference to 1.3 that info should be available
    as text.

Issue 539: 11.6 (user profiles): Must the user profile be
portable? Does saving configurations suffice?

  - Portability is not required by checkpoint 11.6 but is
    a useful feature.

Issue 538: [Editorial] Make checkpoint requirements distinct
from exceptions, sufficient conditions

Resolved: Yes.

Issue 536: [Editorial] 9.7: Title is too forceful and doesn't
communicate key bit of checkpoint

Resolved: Change the title to "Move content focus in reverse"
since the primary (but not only) difference from 9.3 is the
reverse requirement.

Issue 535: 9.4 (restore history): Must consider UA cache

IJ: I don't want to require more than consideration of last
modified date. I don't want to require checksums or other


  - UA is not required to restore these variables
    if content is "newer" than the content in the history.

  - Change title to "Restore viewport state history"

Issue 534: [Clarification] 9.3 (Move content focus): Clarify
that "each element" refers to elements in set defined in
provision 1.

Resolved: In checkpoints 9.3 and 9.7 (and others?), clarify that
"each element" refers to elements in set defined in earlier

Issue 533: [Clarification] 8.1 (Input config indications):
"Identified as such [in the specification]"?

Resolved: Clarify in 8.1, that the expression "identified as
such" means "identified as such in the specification".

Issue 527: [Clarification] 3.6: Add brief explanation why 3.6 P2
and 3.5 P1 (already in techs)

Resolved: Add brief explanation why 3.6 is P2 and 3.5 is P1
(already in techs).

Completed Action Items

IJ: Update issues list.

RS: Write up paragraph about the importance of thread-safe access
for in-process ATs.


The following will appear in next draft of UAAG 1.0:

IJ: Add a note to 12.2 (documentation) to remind people that APIs
benefit accessibility.

IJ: Update techniques document with RS text:

HB: Find out what SVG WG is doing these days in the way of test
suites, and find out how to get UAAG 1.0 requirements
incorporated. Message from HB:

Open Action Items

IJ: Send proposal for Guideline 10 modifications based on today's
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

IJ: Propose text to the UAWG on conformance profiles for use by 
other specifications.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027

IJ: Review UAAG 1.0 for which checkpoints should be "all formats" v.
"formats that are part of the claim".

JG: Write up user scenarios for why non-text-based highlighting 
important for users; notably which users.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027
See for additional questions:

JG: Clarify why "Max rating" used in some cases (in low 
implementation experience section) and "Avg rating" in some cases. 
Also, delete "+/-" with P (round down from G to P)

JG: Contact developers for API requirements.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 15:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:32 UTC