Minutes of 15 May 2003 UAWG teleconf

Agenda:

1. Action item review
2. Next ftf meeting
3. Review of XHTML 2.0 comments

Previous meeting: 1 May 2003
Next meeting: 29 May

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 IJ summary of comments on 6 May 2003 XHTML 2.0

[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 regard

DP: If you have an anchor, it will move to any element you tell it to