WebCGM Teleconf
14 Sep 2006


See also: IRC log


Lofton_Henderson, Stuart_Galt, thierry, Don, Dieter
Dave, Benoit




<lofton> dieter, do you plan to dial in?

<DW> yes, I will need 5 minutes or so

Lofton, I will be only able to attend the first hour as I have a TTWG telecon at 18h00

<tmichel> scribe: Thierry

roll call 11:00am ET, membership, agenda

<tmichel> Absent: Chris

routine WG business

<tmichel> Lofton is out next week. Should heve the telecon though.

<tmichel> Volunteer to chair ?

<tmichel> May have WAI PF to join next week

<tmichel> 2 weeks from today a week before CR, should lock down the language of the Appendix

Lofton: Thierry or Chris should Chair

Resolution: Thierry or (and) Chris should Chair next meeting

WAI appendix suggestions

suggestion from the wAI PF WG

<lofton> [4a]

<lofton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/att-0039/2006-09-13-appendix-E.html

<lofton> [4b]

<lofton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/att-0039/E4_1.htm

two suggested documents 4a and 4b

at previous URI

Lofton: Spent some time on these
... any overall opinion ?
... Have read thierry and Stuart

Thierry: Why 2 document ?

Lofton; Proably 2 Ai in WAI PF

Al and Kantarou

had conversation with Al yesterday

and asked them to come next week not today

should try to answer before their F2F monday or tuesday

Looking at the suggestions

Took our first draft appendix and raised some concern

<tmichel> [4b] says, "The specification of WebCGM applies concurrently with the internationalization and accessibility recommendations. However, as described in [Essential Components of Web Accessibility], several components such as authoring tools, media viewers and developers, have to work together to improve Web accessibility."

<tmichel> Should use [4a] as basis for E.1

<tmichel> it explain how it should deal with WAI topic. and in the spirit of accessibility

<tmichel> Stuart: It is appropriate to link to these then add it in the appendix

<tmichel> Thierry/ yes look good to me

<tmichel_> the following statement should be added (taken from [4b]).

<tmichel_> However, as described in [Essential Components of Web Accessibility], several components such as authoring tools, media viewers and developers, have to work together to improve Web accessibility.

<tmichel_> and integrate it into E1

<tmichel_> it is a good piece of information as a follow on

<tmichel_> Stuart: thinks we can incorporate into 3rd paragraph in E1

<tmichel_> Proposal: approve E.1 of [4a] with addition of the extra sentence

<tmichel_> looking at E.2

<tmichel_> E.2 Navigation

arose because to kentarou original comment to have some way to navigate in objects

when you fill a form can move mouse to bring focus or use tab key is a simple exemple

WAI PF suggest to point out alternative mode of navigation

tricky section, in normative 2.0 spec, we have not dealt with concept of focus

if come back with a 2.1, will need to say which object can use focus (develop explicit model for focus)

like SVG allows to toogle with object can receive focus

Dieter: We do not have focus in WebCGM

lofton with visibility we kind of have a focus functionality

you are shifting the focus ..

Dieter: No that is incorrect. The object does not have the focus. No keybord input. Mouse import

<tmichel> No keybord input. We need to define a sementic for it

<tmichel> define a reaction to that, what is a focus from one object to another. There is NO such thing in WebCGM

<tmichel> therefore we can't support the WAI statement

<tmichel> Lofton: This is why it is tricky. However, all of the adaptive functionality suggested by WAI PF can be supported without the explicit focus concept.

<tmichel> Let's look at our previous wording

<tmichel> If there is a list of objects the viewer can navigate from one object to another.

<tmichel> This is the text that came from Cologne (but it introduced the word "focus", which was a mistake)

<tmichel_> [UAAG10] only set capabilitiers a user tool should offer

<tmichel_> Our initial comment out of Cologne say viewers can add this capabilities on top of the spec

<tmichel_> In E2, mean what accessible viewers should do

<tmichel_> Lofton: What in E2 could be clarified for the accessible viewers on top of standard functionalities from the Spec

<tmichel_> Dieter: Should be a loose language. or define what focus means

<tmichel_> Lofton : Can we fix the wording in E2 and havn't define what focus is

<tmichel_> Stuart: we define interactivity but not focus. Should have vague statement

<tmichel_> Dieter: Are they trying to accomplish something for blind people

<tmichel_> Lofton: or can't use a mouse

<tmichel_> Navigate to an object and highlight. that we could do but not very useful for blind people

<tmichel> Lofton: should offer a mode equivalent to mouse over

<tmichel> lofton needs to have a way to navigate from object to object. Focus is not integrated with our Normative part

<tmichel> Lofton: Should propose to remove the focus word (was in our first draft of WAI PF)

<tmichel> Lofton: E2 without having to develop a complete focus model

<tmichel> Stuart: a complete focus model would be for 2.1 or beyond

<tmichel> Dieter: If you have keybord input what to have the viewers to select (like read the screen tip). introce selection mode

<tmichel> Dieter: Not sure we should go this route, not on the requirement list nor in the spec. therefoer the all concept needs to be specified

Lofton: Their original comment did not use the word focus. We introduced it. Therefore could rewrite to remove it
... an accessible viewer should have these capabilities. would satisfy their comment and UUAG
... emphasis is on the capability, not standardizing specific keyboard sequence to invoke the capability
... recommend the capability, not specific techniques, and that satisfies UAAG (I think)
... The issue is Using a concept of focus as it was not a Normative concept in the Spec.
... It make sense outside the concept of focus
... Identify the problem. proposed a solution or discuss it at our next telecon with WAI
... Would prefer to come with a simple solution to avoid the focus word in the 2 paragrahs.

<tmichel> Dieter: I will be travelling all week, can not take any AI

<tmichel> Thierry: Are there other issues?

<tmichel> Lofton: E.3 is a useful clarification

<tmichel> E4: was a proposed addition at the end

<tmichel> Lofton: Mabe a problem in E4. only talk about visibility not interactivity. We did not bring it up

<tmichel> Stuart/ when E2 is resolved E4 should be easy

<tmichel> Lofton/ Very low time next week

<tmichel> Lofton: Could you take this AI to revise E2 and E4

<tmichel> Stuart: Ok will do. A lot of this navigation needs a well thought structure

<tmichel> OK i must Go, already late for TTWG. Will talk to you on list

<tmichel> Bye

<lofton> thanks thierry

<lofton> I agree with Stuart's comment, that is the point of "Essential components..." -- that various components must cooperate to make an accessible experience

<lofton> Summary of agreement: there is a problem with the language of E.2 and E.4, because of "focus".

<lofton> "focus" is not explicitly treated in the normative parts of WebCGM 2.0.

<lofton> Therefore it is something of an undefined concept in E.2 and E.4.

<Stuart> E.2, and E.4 could be rewritten to exclude the concept of focus

<Stuart> Focus should be developed fully at a later time.

<lofton> We think that the dealing explicitly with the concept of "focus" can and should be avoided till a later version of WebCGM, e.g. 2.1.

<lofton> And we think it can be removed from the discussions of E.2 and E.4 without impacting the recommended accessibility functionality.

<lofton> ACTION: Stuart to propose new wording for E.2 and E.4, send to WG list, due Friday afternoon. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Propose new wording for E.2 and E.4, send to WG list, due Friday afternoon. [on Stuart Galt - due 2006-09-15].

<lofton> The telecon tentatively thought E.3 was okay -- a useful clarification and elaboration of previous draft (Stuart to check and verify).

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Stuart to propose new wording for E.2 and E.4, send to WG list, due Friday afternoon. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/09/14 17:17:11 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/it as a 3rd sentence/into 3rd paragraph/
Succeeded: s/without addition/with addition of the extra sentence/
Succeeded: s/There is such thing in WebCGM/There is NO such thing in WebCGM/
Found Scribe: Thierry
Inferring ScribeNick: thierry
Default Present: Lofton_Henderson, Stuart_Galt, thierry, Don, Dieter
Present: Lofton_Henderson Stuart_Galt thierry Don Dieter
Regrets: Dave
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Sep/0043.html
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Sep 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-webcgm-minutes.html
People with action items: stuart

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]