Date: Wednesday, November 11th
Time: 12:00 noon to1:00 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: (+1) 617/258-7910
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
AG: Will review section on 'point of regard' in guidelines document.
MH: Post these ideas to WG mailing list.
IJ: Send changes to document since last WG draft to mailing list.
Issues that need to be considered in developing a consensus:
SL: Send thoughts/experiments on navigation and rendering to WG mailing list.
How do we reach consensus about which techniques must be implemented natively?
JG: Two sticky issues: table rendering and table navigation. Also adding a layer of keyboard support that may not be in current plans of major browser vendors.
JG: Currently two-tiered mechanism:
SL: I kind of see them as combined. Some more tightly combined than others. Helpful to user to not have to relearn mechanisms each time they change systems. Learning curve much higher since you must learn new tools and relationship of access technologies to those tools
KH: Saying rendering should be same across all user agents (for consistency), but doesn't this take away added value of assistive technologies?
SL: Burden should be shared by asst. technologies and major user agents. Possible criteria for choosing: - Complexity - Cost - Size of community that benefits times the importance of feature - Can this help reduce learning curve
AG: Different interfaces should be supported. Need to deliver functionality at object model interface and the video bits interface. I don't think the right approach is to weigh functionality. Instead, look at how well do interfaces work. Assign priorities there.
AG: UA Guidelines are asking for ambitious things today. I think implementing natively and delivering to the video buffer imply two different technical problems. We're muddying the water if we don't consider this. Some redundancy across both interfaces necessary.
Al: The native-assistive interface is not sufficient. Need to break down into more interfaces to make selection process easier. API interface, but also video bit interface.
JG: I'd rather not take a brand new approach to establishing priorities/split.
/* Scribe note: See Daniel Dardailler's attempt at drawing the line:
CMN: I don't like including cost in the criteria.
SL: I just think the WG must keep costs in mind.
IJ: I propose bypassing the "criteria" and composing a list, sorting them by difficulty (based on DD's email) and trying to get consensus from the list.
JG: One problem may be that the techniques are not specific enough.
SL: With clever table rendering, there are ways to bypass some of the navigation issues.
Action SL: Send thoughts/experiments on navigation and rendering to WG mailing list.
MH: We'll be taking some information about navigationing documents into user keyboard commands style sheets.
Action MH: Post these ideas to WG mailing list.
AG: High priority: User should be able to focus on any element in an HTML document.
/* Note, not the same as point of regard */
Slightly less high: Navigation Slightly less high: Presentation
IJ: Check out the techniques document TOC and try to apply Al's divisions to different subsections.
SL: Table navigation and access tightly related.
JG: Concern about building whole new models into the guidelines, asked AG to send a proposed revision to the guidelines of his idea
SL: Asked for feedback on frames navigation e-mail.
JG, MN: Same concept as LYNX for handling frames
JG: Asked SL to repost message