Raw minutes from 18 Jan 2001 UAWG teleconference from Ian Jacobs on 2001-01-18 (w3c-wai-ua@w3.org from January to March 2001) (original) (raw)

18 January 2001 UA Guidelines Teleconference

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0093.html

Minutes of previous meeting 11 January:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

Next meeting: Monday, 22 January 2001 @ 2pm ET

Present: Jon Gunderson, Ian Jacobs (scribe), Mickey Quenzer, Tim Lacy, Harvey Bingham, David Poehlman, Rich Schwerdtfeger.

Regrets: Eric Hansen, Kitch Barnicle, Jim Allan

Absent: Charles McCathieNevile, Denis Anson, Gregory Rosmaita.

Announcements

  1. Extra telecon: Date: Monday, 22 January 2001 Time: 2:00-3:30 EST Phone: +1-617-252-7000

  2. Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001

    TL: I'm probably not going. IJ: Please send someone else from Microsoft. TL: I will follow-up on this. MQ: I doubt I can go unless I can get sponsored.

Discussion

  1. Update on joint meetings at all working group meeting

    JG: Only two likely: DOM WG and/or CSS WG

    JG: Voice, Mobile WGs not meeting. But they are interested in having a joint teleconference at some point.

  2. Update on revisions to the 16 January working draft from IJ

    IJ: Fixed conformance section.

  3. Issue 324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#324

    Proposed resolution by IJ:: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437.html

    Issue: What priority of requirement to WCAG 1.0?

    HB: Take PDF, in general, they may not meet a particular level of WCAG. But if you remove some features, they might.

    IJ: One problem is that we don't have a formal way to say "this format allows conformance to WCAG". We don't have a "format accessibility guidelines". I think that it may be easier to say "this format does not allow WCAG-conformant authoring" than "this format does".

    HB: I have a concern about this formulation and verifiability. The ER is developing means for making accessibility assertions about documents and perhaps generators of those documents.

    IJ: Note that 12 January WCAG 2.0 includes similar language in checkpoint 2.1. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20010112.html

    IJ: We could add to the document a statement about which checkpoints are subject to interpretability (refer to "Hurdles of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/10/hurdles)

    Resolved:

    1. Adopt http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437
    2. Add statement to docuement that some checkpoints may be subject to interpretation.

    Action IJ: Add these resolutions for issue 324.

  4. Issue 327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#327

    Status: We resolved to add a requirement at 16 Nov face-to-face.

    Proposed resolution by IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088.html

    TL: Whatever the DOM requires, MSAA would also have to support.

    RS: Isn't this part of using standard APIs? I think a lot of things wouldn't work any if the API doesn't support these encodings.

    RS: I don't want to add a requirement that causes us to go back to last call. IJ: I don't think it does. It's part of existing API requirements, just a special case. TL: I don't think it does.

    /* TL finds that MSAA requires UTF-16 */

    Resolved:

    • Adopt proposal for new API.
    • Add to the Note that this is a special case checkpoint of all API requirements in general.

    Action IJ: Add this checkpoint for API support.

  5. Issue 373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#373

    Proposed resolution by IJ: Don't raise this priority. It's already P1 to document all features that benefit accessibility. Therefore, while useful, lack of documentation of the changes specifically would not make understanding the documentation impossible.

    RS: I agree with IJ's proposal. Note also that no documentation of changes is not a problem specifically to users with disabilities. Changes affect all users.

    Resolved: Leave priority of 10.5 a Priority 2 for reasons cited by IJ.

  6. Issue 382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used).

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#382

    Status: I wrote the reviewer asking for more details and have not heard back yet except that the reviewer acknowledged reception of my request.

    Proposed resolution by IJ: Since 3.2 is about animated images, not all animated effects, scripting is not an issue. No change to the document.

    DP: I think that the issue was that the format doesn't allow Adobe to know that an image is an animated image.

    IJ: But in this case, a broader solution would meet the requirement (e.g., turn off all images).

    IJ: Recall that "animation" is supposed to be a more general class of thing than "animated image". I think that G3 is about animated images only, but G4 is about animated effects you can achieve through scripting, style effects, SMIL animation, Flash.

    Resolved:

    • No change to checkpoint 3.2.
    • Await new information from Adobe.

  7. Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion.

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#389

    Status: I wrote the reviewer with clarifications and asked for comment. No response yet. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0038.html

    Proposed resolution by IJ: We have reduced some of the conformance requirements as a result of the reviewer's comments. We have worked very hard on this conformance scheme and rejected a number of others. If the reviewer has specific suggestions, we will consider them.

    TL: Lowney says he will respond by next Wednesday.

  8. Issue 394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view.

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394

    Proposed resolution by IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html

    JG: Text only?

    IJ: No. Consider using "less" on a Word document. There are cases where it may not be useful (e.g., looking at a WAV file).

    TL: I think the proposal is a good one.

    JG: What about streaming video/audio?

    IJ: I think we can ask for a static view (i.e., it doesn't have to change over time).

    IJ: According to this requirement, user agents would have to show JPEG data in order to conform.

    DP: Once in a while, I bring up a JPEG image in Notepad to verify that the file is not empty. There's also stuff in WAV files like author information.

    IJ: The goal is not to be able to view any old format through any conforming UA. Clearly the UA should provide a source view for specs that it implements. Should a UA provide a source view for specs that it doesn't implement? It is possible to claim conformance for a user agent that doesn't feature a source view in conjunction with Notepad (or less).

    Proposed revision:

    • Only for specs that the UA implements.
    • Only for formats where text can be extracted from the format.

    JG: I like this a lot better.

    Resolved: Adopt Ian's proposal with revisions.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html Include rationale:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0065.html

  1. Issue 445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#445

    Proposed resolution by IJ: UAAG 1.0 is designed to promote accessibility of the Web for users with many types of disabilities. Keyboard access is considered fundamental for this. This document is not designed to promote the accessibility of specialized user agents. Therefore no change to our requirements.

    Resolved: No change per rationale provided.

  2. Issue 446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG).

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#446

    Status: We have already discussed this (refer to issue 111) and resolved to leave this a priority one checkpoint. The rationale has been that if user agents don't implement features, authors will never be able to use them. Therefore, UAAG 1.0 must "lead". http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111

    JG: We don't have a one-to-one mapping between WCAG and markup. UAAG 1.0 must lead, so we require P1 for all features. Resolved: No change per rationale provided.

  3. Issue 447: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#447

    Status: The reviewer's comment was that the document said that the user agent should work by default. But since the document requires lots of configurability to meet the different needs of users, for which users should the document work by default? The problematic sentence in the last call draft was "Note: User agent developers are strongly encouraged to design software that conforms in the default configuration." That statement has been removed from the 13 January 2001 draft because it doesn't make sense: You don't "conform" in the default configuration. You simply conform or you don't. Therefore, unless there are objections or other comments. I would consider this issue resolved.

    Resolved: Sentence deleted since erroneous.

  4. Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]

    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448 Comment: The reviewer's comment was "Is this section referring to viewing the page or editing the page? Why would a user need to access the CSS when viewing a document?"

    Proposed resolution by IJ: Make this requirement read-only access.

    • We already require that a conforming user agent allow the user to select and apply user style sheets (checkpoint 4.15 in 13 Jan 2001 draft). - We require that the user be able to operate the user agent through keyboard alone. - Therefore, the user should be able to apply user style sheets through the conforming UA's user interface. ATs do not need to write to user style sheets through an API. Can people suggest a scenario where the AT would need to write to the conforming user agent's user style sheet through an API? (e.g., screen magnifier?)

    DP: The AT might take a hit if the AT can't write. IJ: But writing possible through the conforming UA's user interface. RS: Current style API doesn't support writing to style sheets. CSS API doesn't let you add a style sheet.

    Action IJ: Ask Philippe Le Hegaret about this and alert the WG.

    NO RESOLUTION

Action Item Summary

Open Action Items

  1. IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question (equivalence, text element, etc.)

  2. IJ and EH: to review the definition of "presentation" to possibly drop URI-dependencies.

  3. IJ and EH: Work on definition of "animation" that identifies "animated image" as a special case. Also talks about script effects, style sheets effects, markup languages as being able to create animations. (Blinking not part of animations...?)

  4. JG: [20]Talk to Al Gilman at the next WAI CG meeting about a joint meeting with UA, PF, and Voice WG (or participants) to discuss accessibility issues. Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

  5. JG: [21]Send screen shots of directional techniqes Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

  6. JG: Implementation information for guideline 2

  7. JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same synthesizer engine.

  8. JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the next version of the document

  9. DP: [22]Send information about tools that allow mouse binding reconfiguration Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

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

  11. GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline 1/18/2001)

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

  13. MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the techniques document based on OpenBook. (deadline open)

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

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Update 8.8 techniques. Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116

  2. IJ: Get wording from Martin for thisrequirement (e.g., "conform", "implement", etc.) for issue 327 Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088

  3. IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add TeX, RTF, PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.htm. Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116

  4. IJ: Add clarification statement to checkpoint 7.3 to the document Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation

  5. IJ: Add to directional navigation to techniques to checkpoint 7.3 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation

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

Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 16:04:29 UTC