September 24, 1999
4:00 - 5:00 PM EDT
Longfellow Bridge: (617-252-1038)
IJ will call Steven Pemberton and sort out how to proceed with MAP element in HTML 4.01. Done. adopted by HTML 4.01 group. Open question: can you mix A and AREA elements? To be answered by HTML group.
WC and JW need to finish work on checkpoint 3.3 and 11.1 clarifications. open issues: isue #4 (dating conformance claims)
GR sounds like "enhanced for x or y" need a template why they did specific things? don't see many people filling it out.
JW concerned about claiming conformance based on software versions rather than what standards conforms to. don't want to encourage that.
/* WC reads proposal */
WC part of transforming gracefully is to be backwards compatible.
GR people should be encouraged to date conformance claim.
JW by the time it becomes an issue, will be new version of guidelines that should deal with it with UUA clauses removed.
IJ dangerous to expect another version - not that won't be one, but can't predict future.
WL if you do it right, it won't become inaccessible.
/* consensus to add to Errata */
WC what about the list of checkpoints?
JW instead of referring to the list, explain rationale for choosing compatiblity issues discussed on browser support page. then give presentation of which browsers support which features.
@@ WC ask list again to ensure consensus to add to errata page.
WC needs to follow-up on lead with Netscape re: browser support page .
IJ There is some info linked from UA page.
WC waiting to hear back from Netscape - has had a response from Vidur, we are trying to figure out who I will work with.
@@WC will check out UA page.
GR and JW agreed to help populate the browser support document with info re: lynx and emacsspeak/w3 (respectively). Editors need to work with them to get this
JW timeline - after PF and other spare time available.
GR busy next 11 days w/AU, CMN may help out.
GR take 2.5 to 2.8.2? or just the latest? was thinking latest win32 and unix. some people still using 2.3 in shell account.
@@GR has some statistics on usage, will dig up.
WC let's try to educate people so that they know there are other versions out there. people out to be contacting their sysadmins to update to latest version (when possible).
brought up with CG last week.
WC has invited some people, waiting to hear back.
WC it is appropriate, discussed this week. will send note next week.
as method to make the "skip link" more visually "acceptable" without making it invisible/unusable to people with physical disabilities who are likely to be loading graphics and thus would miss the single pixel gif (as previously suggested).
/* discussion as to why an issue */
GR using methods to do this on forms.
JW is a UA issue. therefore, need an interim solution.
IJ problem to use style sheets? i.e., media="text" display the special link.
WC no, because will most likely not be a text browser.
JW what is the priority?
JW they are less likely to be concerned about the visibility, since doing so for accessibility. thus text link or icon would be reasonable.
IJ for UA pg, there is a link to jump other links at the top. hidden by display-none.
JW are there objections to the default being visible?
GV this in techniques, right? suggest it be visible by default. "skip navbar" might be good text for the link. It's short. in techniques, we can discuss that if it is not acceptable to have it be visible by default, here are some ways to hide it. Some developers may not be able to get the visible link past creative arts dept of their company. if its hidden it means that people with physical disabilities will miss the benefit, but people who are using speech will not have to listen to the group of links over and over again.
WC so, in techniques let's say, "make it visible be default, if you need to hide here are some ways to do it.
GR if you can't see whole screen at once you may also need to have the link be visible.
@@WC let's include these arguments in discussion in techniques doc.
Closed until Chuck raises more questions.
WC read issue #9 from Eric's e-mail.
JW one way to solve is with different versions and content negotiation.
IJ why is this an access issue?
WC he primarily discusses equivalents and internationalization.
IJ what can we take to I18N group? do they consider signed languages?
JW really an I18N issue.
WC Don't need to open up anything at this time.
Copyright © 1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.