See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
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
... 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
JA: Our presentation was not
... 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
... 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
(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
... 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
JA: Not sure
... Will put together outline by next week
JA: We are extended for a bit
JR: Yes - don't remembe how long
<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
<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...
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jan, Allanj, KFord, pparente, cklaws\ Present: Jan Allanj KFord pparente cklaws\ Regrets: Gregory R. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0024.html Got date from IRC log name: 31 Jan 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jr WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]