Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, July 28th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present: David Poehlman
Regrets: Jim Allan
Reference Document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/
a) CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list.
b) IJ: Send similar request to IG. done.
IJ: CMN has agreed to forward his email to the IG list directly.
c) HB: Ask Len Kasday for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. Status: Pending.
HB: It wasn't Len, it was Alan Cantor. No reply yet.
JB: Note: Alan Cantor is expected to participate in the WG starting soon.
d) IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f Status: Done.
e) RS: review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed. Status: Pending.
CL: HPR is more like PWWebspeak - neither graphical desktop user agent nor dependent user agent.
GR: Can HRP operate independently of netscape?
CL: No, but not dependent on the user interface, only the datastream.
f) JG and IJ: to identify who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people. Status: Done.
JG: Will discuss in this conference call: Consider each technique section in teleconf and create outline for the section. Ask people to fill out the outline.
g) IJ: Review member participation for next week. Status: Pending.
h) JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon Status: Done. Refer to Agenda 2.
Agenda 1) Face to face meeting after last call.
JG: Goal is to review comments after last call working draft (late September, early October). One idea is to schedule around ATIA meeting in Florida. We'd like a UA developer to host the meeting. Would be strategic.
JG: Possible dates:
IJ: Any known constraints?
IJ: For 8-week minimum announcement, need to announce by 5 August.
ACTION: JG/IJ: Will finalize dates by next teleconf 4 August and announce on 5 August.
IJ: Info lost in generalization. Not verifiable if too general.
IJ: Is it ok if "highlighting" lost? Wasn't this important for identification by other tools?
GR: For those things that were priority 1 and have been consolidated, need to ensure covered by general checkpoints.
RESOLVED: Combine 9.1-9.3 into one checkpoint, listing view, selection, and focus all together.
GR: One problem with frames is that with text-to-speech technology, if you don't know that you are in a frame, the screen reader will it as the only view. You don't know, e.g., if you follow a link, that another view has been updated. If you know you're in a frame, you can use the UA's (desktop or screen reader) nav mechanism.
MK: Still need to know that the view has changed.
IJ: This is covered in a different checkpoint.
DP: If current view changes something not in current view, still need to know this.
RESOLVED: 9.7 is covered by 9.1 - a frame is a type of view.
JG: In Techniques, show frames as examples.
MK: We want to know that a frame is a navigation bar.
DP: Script-based changes concern me more than static frames.
RESOLVED: Add to 10.1: "about document and view changes". Ensure that it's clear that this refers to changes in any view, not just current.
RESOLVED: Add to 10.1, an example that refers to scripts that pop up information dynamically.
ACTION: GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a frameset context.
About checkpoint 9.9: Natural language identification.
DP: Propose checkpoint to allow users to turn on/of support for natural language.
JG: Several cases:
Conclusions for langauge checkpoint(s):
ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9.
HB: What about bidi support?
ACTION: IJ: Look into this.
(Note: 9.14 is also in third proposed checkpoint, so will be considered in that context.)
GR: Maybe talk about "status" information instead.
GR: Proposes "Provide status information about links."
IJ: Is 9.16 of high value?
GR: I think so.
IJ: Goal is to provide user with information that allows them to decide whether to follow a link (fee, already visited, in same document, language of target, etc.).
GR: Yes. If you're going through a list of links, it's useful to know that you're at link X of Y (where Y is total number of links).
ACTION: IJ: Write a proposal:
GR: PROPOSED: "Allow user to configure what information about links is presented." I may want link text or "title". (e.g., with screen readers).
ACTION: GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any information made available to the user).