Raw minutes for 24 January 2002 UAWG teleconf

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