UAWG conference call minutes -- 1 Feb 2007

<jallan> scribe: JR

<scribe> Scribe: JR

Requirements doc

JR: Split doc into 2 sections: 1. Taking into account ne technology 2. Reoganizing, clarifying guidelines document itself

JA: JA is editing document in place http://www.tsbvi.edu/technology/uawg/UA_requirements-29jan07.html
... What about settings/Javascript items...

<jallan> create separate section of UAAG that deal with configuration to resolve settings/preference negotiations (platform, browser, javascript, and author created preferences - accesskeys, ajax stuff)

CL: Maybe this would be a seperate section
... When settings conflict - we want to talk about resolving

JA: Will send this out when done...
... On to 2. shift focus back to base browser (make user agent base provide the accessibility model)

CL: Goes back to discussion of how we define UA and who is the audience
... We were talking about a shift towards the browser
... But then getting push back from PF

JR: Maybe a core/optional structure...
... core is things browser has to do, optionla is things that plugins or ATs can provide.

CL: Yes but will be controversial
... Longstanding example is lack of keyboard control of mouseover events
... Things aren't "real" until they are supported by more than one browser

JA: We have question mark on chrome customization

CL: There might be customization of UI - e.g abbreviation expansion
... And of course customization of content
... One part is how you interact with content...
... Other is what information am I exposing
... There are other customizations like the toolbar etc
... Diff categories...

PP: OK but verbosity etc. isn't in base browser
... Whole section 2 is about providing programmatic access
... Browser is a model with a view strapped on top

CL: Number 2 is about the model....model 3 is more about the view
... and io customization
... 2.2 should move outr then

PP: Have to provide API to do customization - 2.2.1
... Rem 2.2
... 2.2: But what if you want to access the model?

CL eg. get to the DOM

<jallan> allow extensions to access the 'accessibility model' (DOM, accessibility API)

JA: 2.3.2 "extensions to the model"

<jallan> Implementation of appropriate DOM [HTML DOM incomplete because doesn't have accessible information for extensions to the browser (JS, flash, XUL?), CSS, scripting]

CL: OK

JA: Taking notes during talking so extra bullets are present
... On to 3. explain how to demonstrate compliance through an accessible view and controller using the appropriate UIs (browsesr and extenstions, assistive technology, other UAs)
... 3.2 should be moved to re-structuring

CL: Number 3 says hard for base browser to comply so gives was to specify what plugins AT's are needed to support conformance

JA: Concerned that we have shifted away from model, view, controller

CL: 4. is more about new techniques ("update UAAG to reflect the emerging internet technologies ")

JA: OK this sounds like big chunks for main outline of doc...

CL: Didn't JR have new outline

(a) Success criteria for *user interface "chrome"*

(b) Success criteria for *rendered content display*

<jallan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006OctDec/0053.html

"Guideline A.1: Authoring tool must facilitate access by assistive

technologies"

Perceivable (new A.2), Operable (new A.3), Understandable

<scribe> (new A.4)

JR: ABOVE is a proposal JR made to ATAG group.

JA: No meeting next week

<scribe> ACTION: JR to Send JA the newest outline. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/01-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: JA, JR Do editorial fixes on requirements document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/01-ua-minutes.html#action02]

JA: Will be in AUstralia first 3 wks of March...
... Not sure on impact of schedule

All: lots of discussion of call logistics while at CSUN

- DRAFT -

UAWG conference call minutes

1 Feb 2007

Attendees

Contents

Requirements doc

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output