- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 15 May 2003 15:51:27 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello UAWG,
Minutes of the 15 May 2003 teleconf are available
as HTML [1] and as text below.
- Ian
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/15-ua-summary.html
=================================================
Minutes of 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf
[1]Agenda:
1. Action item review
2. Next ftf meeting
3. Review of XHTML 2.0 comments
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2003AprJun/0015.html
Previous meeting: [2]1 May 2003
Next meeting: 29 May
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/wai-ua-telecon-20030501.html
Roll call: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Cathy Laws, Sean Stapleford, Colin
Koteles, David Poehlman, Matt May, Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Action items
[Ian]
Completed:
JG send draft charter to JB
IJ send XHTML 2.0 commetns
Not completed:
1. JG: Update issues TS list for removing blink and marquee
tests
2. JG: Repair test suites for frames
3. JG: Contact GW Micro about review
4. JG: Add author stylesheet to individual evaluations
5. MM: Working on evaluation of Apple Safari browser
6. MM: Check into updating evaluation for to included
downloaded forms
7. DP: To contact Freedom Scientific about conformance claims
8. JA and CL: Create implementation report for IBM Home Page
reader using HTML 4.01 test suites
CL: No progress on HPR. I'll just fill it out.
JG: Regrets from Harvey for today.
[Some admin points on paperwork for Colin work on test suites]
JG: We should go over draft charter when WAI Team gets back.
JG: Can Colin get direct access to the CVS system.
[Discussion of account for Colin.]
IJ: JG, I suggest that you send a request to sysreq and cc'
Judy, explaining why the account is necessary.
JG: We have a Konqueror review up.
IJ: They all need review since I was pointing to wrong list of
checkpoints in evaluator. :(
Action IJ: Report diffs between old checkpoints and new
checkpoints (checkpoints.xml and checkpoints-20031217.xml)
Next ftf meeting
[Ian]
JG: Sun? Apple?
MM: For when?
JG: September 2002?
JG: Late september / early October 2002 on the West Coast?
Likely to attend: CL, JG, IJ, MM, CK, DP
Unlikely: Sean
Need to agree to date 8 weeks in advance (i.e., by July)
Action JG: Ping Judy about organizing ftf meeting on West Coast
(e.g., Apple)
Review of comments on XHTML 2.0
Refer to [3]IJ summary of comments on 6 May 2003 XHTML 2.0
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/05/xhtml2-comments.html
[JRG]
IJ: Sent update about 90 minutes ago
IJ: Frames discussions as starting points for discussion
IJ: We should prune things, since HTML working group is over
whelmed
[Ian]
How these comments are organized
1. Comments related to user agent conformance
2. Comments related to accessibility themes
3. Miscellaneous comments
4. New elements?
[JRG]
IJ: Reviewed example in comments related to ordered and
unordered lists
IJ: Defined difference between processing and rendering content
[Ian]
IJ: HTML WG has an opportunity to clear up spec (and not just
import html 4.0 text) and promote interoperability; good for
authors.
[JRG]
JG: Is there pressure from other groups
IJ: QA
JG: Are there other memeber companies pushing for this?
IJ: We will be dicussing general QA issues with the AC
IJ: They should have inline or at least references to
UAAG/WCAG/XAG
IJ: Currently no references to WAI documents
MM: I have a page worth of comments
IJ: Please insert them into the draft
IJ: Can you merge them?
MM: Yes
*** Accessibility themes
IJ: Rendering should reference stylesheets
IJ: They have alot of rendering information in the
specification
IJ: Table of contents should be about representation of
information, not rendering
IJ: Styling through default, author and user stylesheets
IJ: We can add items here related to UAAG 1.0
We say that users should be able to provide a simplified view
[Ian]
JG: Opera has an outline view.
[JRG]
IJ: Oultine views can be generated by Amaya, Mozillia
IJ: They claim they are just about markup, not behavior
IJ: Styling conditional content is important, alonng with
controling styling
IJ: Definition of content
IJ: Our defintion is what is in the DOM
IJ: Other WAI groups have other definition
IJ: We want them to define content
IJ: Conditional content
IJ: There is less conditional content in XHTML 2.0
IJ: ALT and LONGDESC have been removed
IJ: The new model is using SRC on any element and the element
content becomes the conditional content
IJ: Important content
IJ: Letting authors say this thing is important
IJ: There are useful things
IJ: important things can be styled to stand out
IJ: Rather than relying on markup, use an attribute to indicate
importance
IJ: Some user may want to hide less important content and let
the important content remain
CL: Would it be an element or attribute
JG: I think attribute is more flexible
CL: Important would still be generic
IJ: I think so
CL: You could use it to skip navigation bars, indciate key
words
IJ: This is pretty vague, in order for authors and developers
to use IMPORTANT there needs to be better definitions
CL: We need to define important
CL: Exapnsion
IJ: For abbreviations
IJ: I will update commments
IJ: One interesting side effect of getting rid of ALT and
LONGDESC is that there is no way to differentiation between the
two
IJ: It maybe useful to users to have both short and longer
descriptions
JG: Is TITLE still there
IJ: yes
IJ: There is a role attribute
CL: One problem with not having LONGDESC is that you would not
know what the conditional content is
IJ: OBJECT will replace IMG, and you can embed OBJECTS to give
the user more options
IJ: Probably most authors will not do this
IJ: All long descriptions are out of band
IJ: There are times when you do not want to download and
separating resources is useful
IJ: Will put in a description
IJ: Problem for visual and auditory user agents is how do you
show options for rendering of an OBJECT
DP: We are talking about descriptions, I don't hear about
replacement
DP: I need what the image is conveying if I cannot see it
DP: I don't see the discussion
DP: This is a third peice
JG: This is a WCAG issue
DP: When ALT is taking away ALT and LONGDESC, but the third
issue is what the image represents
CL: Ordering issues?
IJ: There are processing instructions
CL: The problem is that the element can have both content and a
TITLE attribute
IJ: Maybe what we need, I suspect that they are independent of
each other
IJ: We need more specific rendering information for title
IJ: This about conditional content rendering when there are
more than one piece of conditional content is available
IJ: By default no conditional content is rendered
IJ: The the next step is user configuration of what should be
rendered to the user
CL: Some people what to render ALT instead of TITLE or TITLE
instead of ALT
CL: XHML 2.0 problem is now TITLE versus content
IJ: Just leave this as a question in the current comments
IJ: They want to include a REL redirect
IJ: We do not want the feature, although some authors like it
*** Navigation
IJ: We need a better defintion of focus
IJ: Other groups have other different defs of focus
IJ: We can use this to clear up other defintions, for example
activating a link
CL: First element after a navigation bar or first active
element?
IJ: If navigation is defined as focus, then only active
elements
CL: Not always defined as active element
CL: First element is not always active element
JG: Point of regaurd
DP: If you have an anchor, it will move to any element you tell
it to
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 15:51:32 UTC