Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, February 17th
Time: 12:00 noon to1:00 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
Comments on new working draft guidelines http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/
Assignment of working group members for detailed review of particular sections of the new working draft. Members will be asked to review checkpoints in one or two sections and make specific comments on checkpoints for that section related to priorities, changes in wording, adding acheckpoint and/or deleting checkpoints. This is VERY IMPORTANT and we want to have at least two working group members per section. Working group members who do not regularly participate in the telecons arealso encouraged to contact the chair to review sections of interest to them.
Initial assignment of checkpoints to either the Descktop Graphical User Agents checklist or the Dependent User Agent (assistive technology) checklist.
Review issues list for open issues http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wai-ua-wd-issues.html
Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG)
Scribe: Ian Jacobs (IJ)
Charles McCathie-Neville (CMN)
Jim Allan (JA)
Scott Luebking (SL)
Harvey Bingham (HB)
Kitch Barnicle (KB)
Has Riesebos (HR) Joined at 12:50 EST \
In section 5.2 (10 Feb WD):
Description: Allow the user to choose from among available text descriptions
of audio or video
In section 5.5 (10 Feb WD):
Description: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a control,
provide the user with access to the associated label.
Checkpoint: 4.3.4 (10 Feb WD)
Description: Display keyboard bindings in menus.
The group was only able to get through section 4.3 of the 10 Feb WD and will continue next week with the grouping
Following should be in both checklist
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Checkpoint 4.2.2: Remove word interactive (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Ian will explore HTML 4.0 sepcification related control labels by 24 Feb
KB: Review Section 4 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
JA: Review Section 5 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
HB: Review Section 5.4 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
CMN: Review Section 6 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
HR: Review sections 2 and 3 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
SL: Review section 1 by 24 Feb (10 Feb WD)
SL: Is this an issue: Access content developers don't want to use document object models. They don't want to deal with a different object model for every piece of software. Implication: more to be done natively.
See Denis' comments .  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0195.html
HB: Document object modelS (plural) was part of the concern.
IJ: a) There will be need for communication
b) I will have a proposal soon for the group addressing this.
JG: We need also to ensure that the details of "what needs to be exchanged" is addressed by this group. Neither DOM nor existing platform-dependent APIs may address real needs. 1) Comments on 10 Feb draft   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/ See Kitch's comments   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0203.html
2. Section 5.2.3 [Priority 3] When null alternative text has been defined, suppress the rendering of the alternative representation. I am not sure what this checkpoint means.
JG: This stems from a Page Author checkpoint (e.g., in the case of multiple images when only the first has alt text.) Action editors: Clarify this meaning notably in the techniques document.
3. Section 5.2.4 [Priority 1] Allow the user to choose from among available audio tracks.
KB: If this is true, do we need the same for video?
IJ: Audio track meant to accompany video. This should be clarified. Action editors: Clarify in document.
KB: Then we don't need it.
HB: We may need it for text captions (e.g., different languages).
Proposed: If a technology allows for more than one [captioning or description] track (for audio or video), the user should be allowed to choose from among tracks.
Resolved: Add one checkpoint to the document describing this.
KB: Prose related to keyboard access.
Proposed: change "close together" to "physically close together".
KB: In 5.5.3, does this include the label?
5.5.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to search for a form control based on its text content.
IJ: a) For those controls with text content (e.g., TEXTAREA) b) For labels?
JG: More valuable to search for information based on label.
CMN: This may refer to Web Content guidelines: put text in every form control that allows it (i.e., use default text).
Proposed checkpoint: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a control, provide the user with access to the associated label.
Resolved: Yes. Priority 2.
Action: Editors will add this.
Proposed checkpoint: For explicitly associated labels and controls, given a label, allow the user to move focus to the associated control.
Action Ian: Find out what HTML 4.0 says about this. I think the spec says put the focus on the control element.
/* Jim joins */
SL:: Concerned about jumping from form to form when you're searching for controls. Proposed checkpoint (HB): Allow the user to identify a form. Technique: Number? Name?
SL: People will assume there's only one form on a page. If they search and end up in a different form, they need feedback that they've changed forms. /* No resolution to 2) Review of the spec.
/* Review of working draft sections */
Deadline for comments 24 Feb teleconference
Section 5: Jime Allan:
Section 4: Kitch Barnicle
Section 5.4: Harvey Bingham
Section 6: Charles McN.
Sections 2 and 3: Hans Riesebos
Section 1: Introduction: Scott Leubking
JRG: Review the sections for adding, deleting, changing checkpoints; changes in priorities
SL: Keep in mind definition of accessibility and whether UAs can be competitive in addressing it.
IJ: Recommended: If you think of techniques as you go, please tell the editors.
IJ: Restated process for agenda:
SL: Can we address the participation of Netscape in this process?
JG: It's important to get them involved.
/* Sublists for checkpoints */
Options: Desktop graphical user agents and dependent user agents (Review of this document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/ )
Options: UA/AT/Both Section 4.1
SL: Should we say "device-independent" or redundance.
JG: Let's not address that here. Editorial issue.
JG: Maybe just for UAs
CMN: Should be both, since low-hanging fruit.
HB: Also, good to have it in place for people assisting users.
SL: I've seen users get lost during installation. Provide status information?
KB: This is a general user interface issue.
JG: This is not on our agenda. 4.1.4: Both 4.1.5: Both Section 4.2 4.2.1: Both
HR: Is 4.1.1 redundant with this?
IJ: Yes, but may be important enough to stand alone. 4.2.2: Both
HR: Why "Interactive"?
IJ: Printer, for example.
HR: E.g., a braille display that reacts on keyboard input. The device is not interactive.
Propose: Remove "interactive".
Action editors: Remove it.
JG: Combine these three?
IJ: We broke them out intentionally.
CMN: Combine, define "active elements".
Issue: What priority for 4.2.5? 4.3.1:
Both JG: I lean towards UA in this case.
CMN: Why not ATs as well?
HR: I'm not sure. When you have accessible AT technology, they normally know the group of people they're working to help.
JG: What about people with several disabilities. Consider Jaws, for example. "Insert" key on numeric pad used as a modifier key. If someone were both blind and could only type with one finger, they couldn't use Jaws (Inset + F7).
IJ (to HR): ATs may be used by larger audience.
HR: Lower the priority for ATs? JG: We want to avoid if possible. We could consider for Pri 1 items.
JG: Screen readers already deal with conflicts with between programs.
JG: Some ATs don't have menus.
CMN: Propose making this a technique for 4.3.4
Resolved: Delete 4.3.4. Make it a technique for 4.3.3.
Proposed: Do this again in the next teleconference.
Adjourned: 1:30 EST