W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for July 21st, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, July 21st
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000


Open Action Items



Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan

Present: Ian Jacobs
Glen Gordon
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita

Completed Action Items

Continued Action Items

New Action Items



RS: tech question, some items don't make sense. bullet item- how to specify in html

IJ: right, to be filled in later, techniques still in process

F2F Meeting during post proposed recommendation stage

JG: move to proposed REC in next month or two, in proposed for 6 weeks, need f2f to discuss issues, looking at sites on west coast in early October

GG: ATIA conference (1st week October-Orlando 6-9) and CTG Oct 18-25

RS: out last week of Oct 14-16 and Oct 31-Nov 1

IJ: arrange calendars, has open calendar

JA: not available Sept 25 - Oct 3, CTG Oct 18-25

RS: perhaps piggy back on ATIA

JG: what about west coast

RS: ATIA convenient for GG

JG: never had meeting in SE USA, what about before conference

GG: after is better

JG: need a host group, with some funding from host group

IJ: host coordinates, funds a dinner

GG: talk to Wilson about this, St. Pete is far from

JG: talk to Judy about this, perhaps 10-12

IJ: need 8 weeks notice

ACTION IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f

JG: need f2f comments

IJ: YES, more efficient, get more done

Fix section 3.1 conformance reference to Priority 1. - review section on "through other software".

IJ: section on conformance in some revision, either conform or don't , then changed to conform by desktop or dependent, then WCAG, then use WCAG conformance, second clause - native implementation or interaction to other software, no check points for interaction with other software. if we don't talk about it then drop clause. propose dropping because no checkpoints

JG: communication with other software was murky, MS was not happy, if we provide it but nobody uses it is that still conformance, don't need clause

IJ: lots of evolution in GL, have dropped lots of language, shifted to dependent UA

JG: both clauses for GUI and dependent agents would be removed.

GG: makes life easier, conform by doing it natively, the native thing will be to support this API

JG: conformance, one statement for AT or dependent, broke it up to Desktop UA and AT, previous version said one conformance - if GUI with AT can meet check point then you have conformance. Now, only do what UAGL says, with out dependence on other software or technology

IJ: do it through interface, 3) it needs to be done (i.e. table access)

RS: why not require cell navigation

JG: desktop not braille, not speech, but provide access to this information, must make browser accessible to text to speech software,

RS: browser is designed for the blind, need to allow other AT to connect to your browser

JG: yes, must allow interoperability with other software

IJ: people may have other disabilities, may not be just blind, user may be using other software in addition to talking browser, must support standard API in answer to HB question-can I enter text from mouse...

RS: special case browser for mobility, blind,

IJ: yes, if they are stand alone, and may be used with other technology then yes, if in a kiosk and no ability to connect other software then now.

RS: special API like IE, help facility add helper object and access to DOM

IJ: expect timely access to DOM, manipulate user interface controls, read and write information about controls, selection, focus, may need to review guideline-

JG: what is required of desktop or AT

IJ: GL aimed at desktop and AT, RS sited another class, if new class want to conform must choose one of the classes, if WebSpeak claim conformance as AT then don't have to work with or allow other AT access, if conform as a desktop then must work with AT

JG: want cooperation between AT, need cross disability AT cooperation and working together

ACTION RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed.

JG: questions about IJ conformance suggestion

RESOLVED: checkpoint 1.3 review, clause removal--all ok

IJ: if still questions, another class of browser- make a proposal if we finish document, and make a profile of class of browser and conformance list, intentionally choose these two classes,

Techniques Document

JG: RS made earlier comment, not much there, JG: to add to techniques what strategies can we use to get people to write techniques

IJ: techniques history...less vital than guidelines, storehouse of information, hard to keep it interesting, structure keeps changing, current structure seems to work, hard to contribute in past, should be easier not, wide open to contributions how to get them? tricky, think about it in parts, review existing browsers and make suggestions based on what's needed. need developer input

RS: like structure

IJ: in order to go to REC, Tim BL says must have solid techniques before last call and REC, techniques is reflection on how real the guidelines are, use techniques to strengthen the GL

RS: id sections that need work, not clear what's needed

IJ: like RS contribution on Java

RS: problems with speed accessing DOM or COM, reality is different from making statements and test case

JG: what would help, make a list of what's needed, identify others to focus on a section

IJ: assigned tasks in AU group, brute force, is one approach, each person has expertise in specific areas, as editor created a usable structure

JG: people have contributed work

RS: id sections, who has expertise

ACTION JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people

JG: other ideas

IJ: some material is mildly complete, sketch form, bullets, need to make paragraphs

JG: describe how something happens based on some tool with screen shots,

IJ: looking for resources, how to XXX?

RS: table stuff would be good for Kathy Laws (IBM) to look at

RS: nobody from Microsoft in attendance lately, Why?

IJ: Judy been talking, questions about MS and Netscape participation. Don't know.

ACTION IJ: Review member participation for next week

Guideline 9: Help orient the user

JG: need a laundry list of needed features and CMN: has queried disability listservs to get important issues- what users need orientation to, currently 25 checkpoints and need more list versus succinct list is good for conformance, lots of things to check off at different levels succinct easier for integration and creativity, i.e. for navigation, give general concept or direction, then expand in techniques.

IJ: no feedback from blinux people, what to shorten list, but no feedback shorten to 10 checkpoints and move other stuff to techniques. where is line drawn for inaccessibility

JG: schism between GL 8 and GL 9, 8 is general, 9 is specific, problem editorially, may be confusing to end user of GL

IJ: option, more abstract principle, or combine, or chop out what is not needed

JG: question, discrepancy between 8 and 9, should 9 be more similar to 8 (less checkpoints)

GG: afraid to say yes, fear of task, lean toward brevity

RS: move some to checkpoints

ACTION JG and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon

RS: would make document less ominous

GG: examples in techniques, put blindfold on try to use, or have page with 1000 links and get to link 800 without a mouse

IJ: scenario

GG: allow nav without mouse, have page with 1000 links and get to link 800 without a mouse rhetorical to make a point

IJ: Great! need more of this, giving rationale use scenario to illustrate, Strong YES

GG: developers should be able to get check point right if they have the concept

JG: other issues

no all around

Copyright  ©  1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.