Raw minutes from 12 December 2000 UAAG teleconference from Ian Jacobs on 2000-12-07 (w3c-wai-ua@w3.org from October to December 2000) (original) (raw)

12 December 2000 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0373.html Minutes of previous meeting November 30: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

Present: Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs, Charles McCathieNevile, David Poehlman, Tim Lacy, Mickey Quenzer, Jim Allan, Eric Hansen, Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets: Kitch Barnicle, Harvey Bingham

Absent: Rich Schwerdtfeger

Next meeting: 12 December Can attend: JA, IJ, JG, GR May attend: MQ, CMN JG: I will send out information abou this extra meeting.

============= Announcements

1.Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001
  IJ: Details of plenary session (weds) on Advisory Board agenda.

========== Discussion

1.Joint meetings with other WAI working groups at our next FTF in March

JG: DOM, Mobile, CSS. UI accessibility requirements? APIs? JG: From PF face-to-face meeting earlier this week: accessibility implementation requirements. Related to checkpoint 6.1. Today, we point to Notes, but these haven't been reviewed by Membership. Proposal that each new spec include a separate section on accessibility features.

IJ: Proposed - a) Need to read their specs. b) Need to talk to Chairs. Time is precious, so we need to get commitments from them to meet a specific times. c) If we meet with them ahead of time, we may have an easier time coming up with an agenda.

MQ: We also need to see whether they have issues with us.

IJ: That's what last call is supposed to do.

IJ: Advisory Board talked about cross-fertilization at the plenary week: people listening at other meetings. IPR and confidentiality issues.

/* Ian notes that Philippe Le H�garet is now chair of DOM WG */

IJ: Write proposals to Chairs of WGs to schedule meetings. Mention in particular UI and API issues. Ask them what specs we should review in preparation.

Action JG: Schedule face-to-face time with other WGs.

3.Issue #399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this? http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#399

IJ: I don't know that we have implementation experience for this checkpoint.

JG: I spoke to someone from Gallaudet about this issue. She said the only technology she knew of was from ATI (the "all-in-one card"). Let's you put characters encoded in the video signal in a separate window and position that window. http://www.ati.com/

JG: The other issue that came up earlier this week: most formatting for captioning seems to be proprietary.

IJ: I don't hear any new information here.

JG: I think in a response to the reviewer, perhaps just clarify that this is for markup languages that support positioning.

CMN: Support for captioning positioning is the same as support for CSS positioning. And there are plenty of implementations available.

JG: I recommend that we talk to WGBH about implementation experience.

Action JA: Review SMIL players to find out which ones support positioning of captions.

Action JG: Talk to Cindy King about captioning.

Action GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning.

EH: What about the priority? The more the document is aimed at a wide range of UAs (e.g., those with small screens), this increases the likelihood of some content being obscured.

Resolution: No change.

Action IJ: Respond to Greg Lowney

4.Issue #400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously? http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#400

IJ: The answer is that when sound not synchronized, global volume requirement suffices. UA developers may implement independent control for all sources of audio (but minimal requirement is just for synchronized sources).

Resolved: No change.

Action IJ: Add a clarifying note to 4.11 that if you allow independent control of all sources of audio, you satisfy the checkpoint as well.

5.Issue #401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#401

GR: I think that an ancillary issue is that for UAs that don't support synth speech, allowing access to all of the speech engine falls under the rubrique of "do no harm". We don't want UAs to cut out functionality.

JG: Issue of a built-in speech engine interfering with the user's speech engine.

Resolved:

6.Issue #402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case) http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#402

Resolved:

7.Issue #403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds. http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#403

IJ: The proposal is a checkpoint to ensure that the user can override author-specified speech speeds. Do people understand 4.12 to include override?

IJ: Is this an element-level override requirement or a global requirement?

MQ: Speech that can come from other sources while you're using your screen access features.

DP: Speech synths may be controlled within a document by embedding text commands in the content. Speech engines do whatever they're told to do in the source.

JG: I think that author-specified element-level speech changes would be stylistic changes.

GR: Two levels of granularity - what the hardware can do (manipulable through machine codes), and shortcuts that allow you to specify different rates for different documents.

JG: Some control sequences hard-coded in content to control a particular speech engine.

GR: That's like painting to the screen - can't be interrupted on the fly.

JG: More advanced user agents let you specify different rates for different windows, objects, content.

IJ: Do any speech engines today let users override author-provided control codes?

MQ: No.

/* Ian note that emacsspeak imlements ACSS, which allows user control on an element-level */

IJ: User override of author-supplied speech rate suggests a content transformation.

IJ: Seems like enabling user override is not a UA issue but a speech engine issue - if the speech engine doesn't allow it, or the format fed to the engine doesn't, then user can't do it. If the question is moved to the UA realm (e.g., in style sheets), then conformance covers our requirements.

Resolved: No change to checkpoint.

Action IJ: Add technique to checkpoint 4.12 to make clear that:

8.Issue #404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow. http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#404

IJ: Did we go too far with our minimal requirements in adding fonts? Remember that we discussed this as part of issue 353: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-353

IJ: What about low vision - is bigger font useful in this case? Who benefits from the font case?

JG: A big selection might be disorienting (if repagination). I think that other characteristics of a font (e.g., underlining or bold) may be useful.

JA: I've implemented this. Even with bold, there may be reformatting. I have concerns about the font requirement as well.

JA: In Windows, you can control colors/fonts at OS level and UA inherits them.

JG: Opera offers border as highlight mechanism.

JA: I think that text decoration suffices for users with low vision. Color suffices for many users with low vision. It's more critical than text style, and in many cases, changing the font style is disorienting.

JG: I would agree.

DP: Some ATs (e.g., Jaws, Outspoken) relies on link color information.

Resolved:

9.Issue #405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#405

JG: Already today, user agents assign a priority to focus and selection. So the final formatting depends on that priority.

CMN: There's another piece to this - when you're actually selecting something, it concurrently has selection and focus.

Action JG: Write a proposal to the WG this week for a checkpoint about discerning focus from selection all the time.

=================== Action Item Summary

Completed Action Items: 10.IJ: Talk to the Director about DOM 2 proposal discussed at FTF meeting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0352.html

33.JG: Ask PF people, especially Rich, about user agents that implement mouse events like mouse over with the keyboard next week at ER-PF FTF.

 JG: Haven't asked RS yet. PF people didn't know of any

implementations.

Dropped Action Items:

32.CMN: Send a proposed definition of equivalent to the group IJ: This has been subsumed by my action item.

Open Action Items

1.WG: look for user agents that implement mouse events like mouse

over with the keyboard. JA: I'll check out what can be done in HPR beta. GR: Check out microsoft.com as an example site.

2.IJ: Follow up with Greg Lowney on issue 389

3.IJ: (Issue 387) Propose new wording for check point 8.4 reflecting

discussion on 28 November

4.IJ: Ask Jason White for CSS implementation information for

emacspeak

5.IJ: Publish new implementation report for the meeting

6.IJ: Improve wording of note for 4.14 related to CSS reference

7.IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question

(equivalence, text element, etc.)

8.IJ: Draft new language for 6.2

9.IJ: Get wording from Martin for thisrequirement (e.g., "conform",

"implement", etc.) for issue 327

11.IJ: Propose new checkpoints to see how it feels to harmonize the requirements related to comments in issue 348.

12.IJ: Propose new checkpoints/modifiedcheckpoints for 8.2.

13.IJ: Add some more explanation about the difference between 7.3 and7.4.

14.IJ: Proposed fixed wording for 7.5

15.IJ: Add to techniques a link to Adobe's accessible PDF information.

16.IJ and AG: Revise the applicability provision and send to WG.

17.IJ: Ask Adobe why this is hard (issue 382)

18.IJ: 1.4 needs to be re-written in light of changes in checkpoint 1.1.

19.IJ: Proposed text in 2.1

20.IJ: Add a note to 5.8 - content requirements may also apply to user interface

21.IJ: Mention that resizing and overiding absolute values is part of some specification in section 1.2

22.IJ: Clarify the meaning of system colors

23.IJ: a) clarify "recognize style" in checkpoints 4.5 b) need more rational - refer to WCAG - style less important than other content c) add note 4.5 - give example of multimedia content that can be recognized as style

24.JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

25.JG: Propose a list of things we areexpecting UAs to recognize in scripts.

26.AG: Send a reply to Phill related to issue 362

27.GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation information

28.GR: Talk to H�kon about CSS support.

29.MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the techniques document based on OpenBook.

30.KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and number of items in search

31.JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation information

-- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 16:03:01 UTC