WAI UA -- 31 Jan 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Jan

WCAG comments due Feb 1.

JR: Didn't see any UAAG showstoppers in WCAG

CL: No IBM comments so far
... Already use WCAG 2.0 draft version from awhile back as IBM guidance

JA: I had a UAAG chat with Judy yesterday...
... She wonders about going out quickly...
... WAI 3.0 would combine things together

KF: So then why a UAAG2...why not wait?

JA: Might be a while.

KF: Maybe we shoot towards that rather than to version2

JA: JR and I talking about making v2 a quick edit

CL: Just get all input into Editor's draft

JA: IF JR and I get together...we can conference everyone in

CSUN presentation

JA: Our presentation was not approved
... But will get 10mins in Judy's WAI overview time

CL: Other chairs coming?

JA: No just me
... So what should I focus on in 10 mins?

KF: In Dec looking at publishing to TR

JR: Tentatively scheduled to go to TR in early March

JA: So maybe we should meet in Feb...will see
... Way cool to get draft out...so what should I talk about?
... 1 participation, 2 uaag new structure, 3 how future accessible browsers might implement Web2, 4 what new browsers controls are needed, 5 separation of core browser requirements from ATs, 6...

<AllanJ> 4. How the use of engineered platform accessibility APIs vs. DOM (application-specific APIs) vs. off-screen models (OSMs) and heuristics effect the user’s access to information delivered by the browser.

JA: So what to focus on?

JR: Particpation YES, new structure NO

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007OctDec/0010.html

(CSUN proposal email)

CL: Lot in PF docs about how new browsers will implement ARIA

JA: I have real concerns about accessibility falling apart again with Web2.0

CL: Not really UAAG this time...
... UAAG1 tried to drive accessibility to UA's and AT's now it's PF
... Aaron L implmenting in Firefox...
... Not sure about IE and Safari
... So not sure how to address this from UAAG perspective

KF: Microsoft participating but not public on what doing yet
... Very aware of what's going on

JA: Maybe we say we feel there are concerns about speed of tech changing and how are we going to maintain accessibility to this stuff

CL: From WAI perspective this stuff still being looked at...so interesting if merged.

JA: So general application interface side...but then inside form is a form is a form....

CL: Concepts the same even if techs aredifferent

JA: We should also talk a bit about compliance split
... Between browser and ATs

CL: We could use some exa,ples from issues list to illustrate what we are wrestling with
... Slides?

JA: Not sure
... Will put together outline by next week

Charter?

JA: We are extended for a bit

JR: Yes - don't remembe how long

JR's proposal on 10.1

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0026.html

<AllanJ> 10.1 seemed a specific instance of providing associated orientation information

<AllanJ> CL: other examples, nested frame and trees are different things.

CL: Lot of other examples you mentioneed I wouldn't have thought of...

CL Like sections of a doc

CL: Like landmark role in document

<AllanJ> JR: hierarchical structure in HTML are not containers.

<AllanJ> JR: would be good to add containers.

CL: Should also call out trees

<AllanJ> CL: also colapseable/expandable content (twisties)

<AllanJ> JR: Should this be paired with 2.3 conditional content

CL: Add "trees" as example, add "landmark" - related to use of headings/sections

<AllanJ> All: discussion of hierarchy of HTML 4 headings

<AllanJ> KF: AT makes implicit associations between Hx and text following it

<scribe> ACTION: JR to Rewrite 10.1 with issues brought up in call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<AllanJ> CL: in tables also talking about row and col number

<AllanJ> JR: general case: numbering pieces of content when in a heirarchy (row, column, or section 1, etc)

CL: If broadened out...what about label for a control
... THe word in Accessibility API's is "Relations" between objects...
... ControllerFro, Controlledby, LabelFor, etc.
... May pull in other checkpoints

JR: Doesn't seem to be called out anywhere else - there is one for making infoset available, and implement access features

JA: Seems to be stumbling on a big cross cutting requirement

JR's proposal for 10.2

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0025.html

<AllanJ> JR: reviews discussion from last week

<AllanJ> JR: "recognized" as "content controlled" - a web 2.0 control might say I will provide my own highlight and the browser gives it control

JA: Think it's a lot cleaner

CL: Is checkpoint looking like you must use them
... Language seems stronger

JR: It is...before it had requirments for things not required

JA: Brings up "except when "recognized" as "content-controlled")"

PP: How does User Agent know?

KF: We had similar concept in other places...

<AllanJ> JR: does dojo handles its own highliting

<AllanJ> PP: are we talking about focus, text, element in a list

PP: Focus - this element is part of the Tab order....
... or not
... Still up to user agent to allow focus to go there
... Firefox just renders regular border

<AllanJ> browser does not know if dojo will provide focus border or other style.

PP: In ARIA could say something is "active descendant"....
... UA doesn't move focus but content could do the highlighting

JR: That's what I meant
... OK I will try to clean up the language to be more specific

<cklaws> I need to leave

JA: Will be tackling untouched guidelines...

- DRAFT -

WAI UA

31 Jan 2008

Attendees

Contents

WCAG comments due Feb 1.

CSUN presentation

Charter?

JR's proposal on 10.1

JR's proposal for 10.2

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output