- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:31:18 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference, 23 May 2002 Agenda announcement: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0107 Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM), Marissa Demeglio (JSPRD), Jim Allan, Tim Lacy, David Poehlman, Aaron Leventhal Regrets: Harvey Bingham, Eric Hansen Previous meeting: 16 May 2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0090 Next meeting: 30 May, 2pm ET. RS: I'm on vacation week of 8 May Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ ========== Discussion ========== Welcome Marissa, from JSRPD: http://www.jsrd.or.jp/ ------------------- 1. Issue 528:6.2, 6.3: Security issues in some cases for write access to content. How to handle exceptions? http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#528 ------------------- JA: Screen readers say "asterisk" when it's displayed on the screen. JG: But you do have access programmatically. AL: You could also listen to keyboard events through the OS. IJ: Proposal was to consider security an orthogonal issue. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0105 DP: I suggest a different example than the asterisks since ATs already render the asterisks today. JG: The example would be in the security section, not the checkpoints. IJ: What about INPUT element, type="file". Tantek said they would never support programmatic control of that for security reasons. TL: I tend to agree with Tantek here. DP: I think we shouldn't treat special cases of security; I approve of the proposal to address security as orthogonal. Resolved: - Consider security an orthogonal issue to UAAG 1.0 requirements. IJ will add a section to next draft of document based on proposal. ------------------- 2. Issue 529: 6.1, 6.2: Is DOM required at P1, or some API? http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#529 ------------------- a. Proposed modified checkpoints in Guideline 6: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0093 Overview issues: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/04/api-summary RS: See my rationale for requiring DOM + documented bindings even when non-normative. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0103 RS: You can implement features beyond the DOM. IJ: The DOM Recommendation allows you to conform and do more than the DOM Recommendation. JG: RS's proposal is consistent with where we've been so far. TL: I agree with RS's proposal. AL: Sounds fine with me. IJ: Note that iSimpleDom (Netscape) will not satisfy the checkpoint as proposed by Rich. AL: Sounds reasonable. AL: I don't think Jaws people are using the W3C DOM. JG: The main problem with the DOM in MSIE is that repairs to invalid markup are not same between rendering structure and DOM representation. MD: My one question: We would embed a browser and use existing parsers. Would we expose that to ATs? RS: Yes. JG: But if you are using JDOM, that would not conform to DOM Core. MD: If we are going through a Digital Talking Book, highlighting text and playing audio simultaneously. Suppose you send text to refreshable braille display. TL: At MS we expose the DOM a lot of ways. Basically, we provide a COM interface (more than one). MD: I've used IEDom. TL: What is not very well-documented is the IMarkupServices interface. This stores the stream (not parsed). Resolved: - Accept IJ proposal for Guideline 6 with RS amendment to require DOM and documented non-normative bindings. - In checkpoint 6.2, recommend that UA developers produce consistent document object and rendering structure after repairs. ------------- 3. Issue 532: 6.9 (timely access): What "exchanges" does this checkpoint refer to? http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#532 ------------- Resolved: - Accept this clarification for 6.10: "For an API implemented to satisfy the requirements of this document, ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely manner." ---------- 4. Issue 531: 3.4 (Toggle scripts): Most pages will include scripts, so alert requirement will be so frequent as to not be useful. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#531 ---------- IJ: Proposal: # Require alert only when script alternative content is available (e.g., NOSCRIPT or whatever the UA recognizes as script alternative), whether scripts are turned on or off. Related this to 2.3. JG: I think it's also important to alert the user when scripts are turned on and there is an alternative to scripts available (e.g., NOSCRIPT in HTML). This would prompt the user who might find the NOSCRIPT content more useful. JG: We don't have implementation experience for this. TL: I don't think many sites do anything with NOSCRIPT. JA: They don't use NOEMBED much either. Resolved (unanimously): - Remove the alert requirement. - Recommend to alert users that, when scripts are turned on and when alternative content to scripts is available, alert would be helpful. ---------- 5. Issue 530: 2.2: Definition of, determination of "xml and sgml applications" unclear. Rely on internet media types? http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-cr2#530 ---------- IJ: Proposal: drop 2.2 second bullet (all SGML and XML applications regardless of Internet media type). The point is that without MIME type, you don't know where to start. You can't sniff the content and tell reliably (apparently). JG: Presumably we will drop the second requirement (SGML and XML applications). RS: Our transcoding experience suggests to me that you can't guarantee 100% that you can tell what content is by sniffing. TL: I agree completely. Resolved: - Delete "all SGML and XML applications, regardless of Internet media type (e.g., HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, SMIL, SVG, etc.)". Action IJ: Report back to the WG to confirm that, without MIME type, UA shouldn't have to guess. JG: We'll talk about this again if IJ comes back with new information. --------------------------- 6. Accessibility Forum meeting http://www.accessibilityforum.org/ --------------------------- JG: Who is going to accessibility forum meeting in June (in Washington, D.C.)? DP: I am going. JG: I won't be going. Some presentations will be Webcast. DP: I'll bet Al Gilman is going. DP: API discussions may move to ATIA. JG: I have concerns with interoperability. Does the UAWG have anything to offer w.r.t. to this initiative? E.g., promotion of the DOM? Apparently there will be discussion about cross-platform APIs? RS: I think it is a good thing if W3C proposes DOM as cross-platform API as part of a solution. DP: The WGs will meet on 3 June (Monday). That's when a lot of the discussion will take place. Software and OS WG would be most appropriate group, but they will be doing low-tech work. We're not really sure that all technical work will go over to ATIA. JG: Yes, this seemed to be more about how the government would be asking for this stuff. AL: I think the DOM is too heavy for most UI toolkits. I think it also doesn't have what you need for UI. JG: But you could create your own (XML) grammar. AL: It seems like it would be a win to use the DOM for everything, but Netscape's experience is that it's hard. AL: Issues of read-only access. JG: Issues of thread-safety. /* More discussions about APIs */ DP: The understanding that I have is that the ATIA and other companies are working on a spec to provide an API to ATs. I think primarily based on Windows work at this time. JG: I am going to try to contact Randy Marsden. AL: It would be good to have a proposal that people could critique. DP: Whatever process is used to work on these APIs, we need to ensure that UAWG efforts and experience is taken into account. Since participants (notably AT developers) are familiar with our work, I think it's safe to say that our work will be taken into account. But I agree that it would be valuable for the UAWG to be in contact with people working on this. /* Discussion about ATIA potentially not doing its work in a public forum */ IJ: I recommend that we invite them to a call to talk about benefits of doing technical work in public. ----------------- Open Action Items ----------------- IJ: Review UAAG 1.0 for which checkpoints should be "all formats" v. "formats that are part of the claim". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0049 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0029 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) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0049 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, 23 May 2002 15:33:41 UTC