- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:28:57 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
UAWG teleconference 24 January 2002 Agenda announcement: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0035 Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe) David Poehlman, Harvey Bingham, Al Gilman, Tim Lacy, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Charles McCathieNevile Regrets: Lee Bateman, Jim Allan, Jill Thomas, Eric Hansen Previous meeting: 17 January 2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0026 Next meeting: 7 February Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ ========== Discussion ========== ------------------------------- 0. JG at ATIA last week. ------------------------------- JG: Jaws 4.01 has new features that will help us in CR. They support header navigation, for example. I want to update the Jaws IE implementation report to include some of the features. DP: I am going to go through the checklist with Jaws and IE 6. There are some significant new enhancements. (Review of TL's action to get impl report for IE.) IJ: Should DP's review be coordinated with TL's review? JG: I think they are different. HB: I notice on a new machine I have with Windows 2000, there is a narrator built-in. Has anyone reviewed that? TL: It's not really there to be a screen reader. It's sole purpose is to install a real screen reader. JG: I've started updating my initial IE report; if I have questions I will also ask TL. Action JG/TL: Work on updating the IE implementation report. AG: I played with NN the other day. Yes, you can hide background images. You have to go into color control. This is not reflected in the implementation report. ------------------------------- 1. Review Ray Whitmer proposal for event descriptions http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0020 ------------------------------- AG: I would like to request examples. It's a two-phase thing (event you can fire, new semantic event). JG: My understanding of Ray Whitmer's proposal is that it relies more on markup than the DOM. /* Charles joins, Al leaves */ JG: A couple of questions we should discuss: 1) Ray's proposal: You can query nodes for lists of descriptions for a given subclass of "Action:Event" . 2) That's for the long term (Dom 4?). What do we do in the meantime? RS: Charles was going to look into how RDF could be used to associate events with descriptions. [Scheduled for Monday.] JG: What can UA contribute to the effort? RS: Additional requirement for another version of UAAG is to provide access to the description. JG: What does the UAWG need to do today? RS: The discussion is going on on xtech. WCAG WG also needs to be involved. This may be more than we can do today. CMN: I don't think there's a lot for the UAWG to do today. Ray's proposal doesn't use any new pieces w.r.t. the DOM. It could be used in a DOM 2 processor. Of course, standardizing this event class (and requiring it in browsers) would be better. IJ: Should we put this in the techniques document today? JG: We can point to DOM 3 specs as a way to do something. But it's not in DOM 3 yet. CMN: You could just point to Ray's suggestion. RS: Use cases? JG: We have some for boolean query. We need more for the descriptions functionality. RS: If you can enumerate the events, whether device specific or not, you should be able to activate. CMN: The RDF approach can be retrofitted, and can be retrofitted by someone other than the author. Like a content-reparing proxy. The other part of the proposal is to make sure that the long-term solution can handle both inline descriptions and out-of-line descriptions. This is the kind of approach taken by XForms, analogous to SVG animations (I think). JG: In the XForms model, they have a way to describe actions specified in the forms? CMN: Yes, you can specify labels, help for form controls. Can be inline or external. RS: What's the xtech list? CMN: Used for technical discussion that crosses the boundaries of several WAI groups. RS: We should probably have PF suggest a solution before putting in the Techniques Document. Next: UAWG will await a report from the PFWG, or a request to provide futher help. Also waiting for DOM WG to come back with a more detailed proposal for query function. /* CMN leaves */ ------------------------------- 2. Implementation Report Update ------------------------------- IJ: I recently visited Microsoft (Mac IE), Netscape, Adobe, and Apple. I am hoping that as a result of these visits, we will receive evaluations of Mac IE, Netscape, Adobe's SVG Viewer, and Apple's Quicktime player. I also expect a review of Grins from Geoff Freed in the near future. HB: I think it's appropriate to ping Jonny Axelson about Opera 6. Action IJ: Ping Jonny Axelson about Opera 6. IJ: I haven't talked to Dirk Mueller lately; I need to get back to him about Konqueror. JG: I hope that we have a new implementation report by the 7 Feb meeting. One new feature of the summary reports themselves: at the beginning of the report there is a list of checkpoints with low implementation experience. This is so you can find out right away what needs to be done for us to advance out of CR. DP: I have a concern about the evolution of the implementation report. For example, if you look at Jaws 4.0 and 4.01, depending on what the implementation report is used for, if you take 4.01 as the benchmark, people might have a hard time understanding what's going on. IJ: I have two criteria: - Please leave old evaluations in place. If you are evaluating a new product, we can add a column to the table. I think it's important to maintain a history of what we've done. - Please remove spec version info from implementation report home page, and move to the implementation table (so that people can always use the latest draft). JG: I also hope to create per-product views. IJ: Some questions coming up as a result of reviews: * RealNetworks: Need to explain how to create a conformance profile to UAAG 1.0 (for authors of other specs). I will propose text to the UAWG. * Relationship of UAAG 1.0 to requirements of other specs. I want to make the relationships clearer: what to do when UAAG 1.0 requirements (1) are in accord with another spec, (2) not in accord with another spec (3) are greater than the other spec. I would like to make this clearer in the conformance section. DP: I think you may want to mention this in the abstract as well. IJ: In a month or so I'd like to circulate a revision to UAAG 1.0 that incorporates some changes. I'm awaiting editorial comments from Susan Lesch. Other changes will be editorial, or for usability, plus two points above. -------------------- 3. Test Suite Update -------------------- IJ: I have stopped work on this. However, I'm paying some attention to deliverables of the QA Working Group (which, by the way, use the WAI guidelines/checkpoints model). JG: I'm teaching a class this semester. My students will be developing a test suite for UAAG 1.0. IJ: Great! I will be visiting the UIUC in a couple of weeks. IJ: I think that we need to coordinate this work with the QA Working Group. We can help them out (they are working on documents to describe test suite frameworks) and we can leverage their expertise. IJ: Can I mention to Judy and Lofton? JG: Sure. IJ: I would prefer if the information resided on the W3C site. JG: Yes, we can use CVS. -------------------------- 4. UAAG vs. 508 comparison -------------------------- DP: The new section 508 Web site is up "and shining"": http://www.section508.gov/ DP: I also found the ATIA's voluntary template. This is interesting as it may help us in our work. http://www.itic.org/policy/vpat.html IJ: I am hoping that JG and I will have a chance to talk about an XML or RDF representation of relationships between the two documents. I would like two documents at some point: a) "If you satisfy 508 requirements, and if you do these X extra things, you conform to UAAG 1.0 Level A (for the following content types labels, etc.)." b) "If you conform to UAAG 1.0 Level A in the following way, and if you do these Y extra things, you conform to 508." IJ: I think this approach will answer the most common developer question: What else do I have to do? We should talk about the *differences* primarily, and this will answer questions, and be a shorter comparision. JG: Right: "What more do I need to do to get UAAG 1.0?" is probably the most common question we'll get. NOTES ON WRITING IMPLEMENTATION REPORT JG: Please give me XML, using DTD: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/evaluation.dtd JG: I use xmetal to edit. ================= Open action items ================= RS: Follow up on IBM software that might contribute to list of implementations. IJ: I will followup offline. Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0135 Philippe Le Hegaret: Return with proposal on boolean testing API for event listners on node and in path TL and JG: Review initial implementation report for IE and comment Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0191 HB: Contact ION Systems for a review of their e-reader with UAAG guidelines Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0082 HB: I will ping Jill Thomas (jill@ionsystems.com). Pinged Tom yesterday. DP: When I last talked to Jill a couple of months ago, she said that Tom was the appropriate contact. ================= Dropped action items ================= JG: Improve Implementation Report Views JG: Review "How to Evaluate a user agent for conformance to UAAG 1.0" Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0054 -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 15:31:59 UTC