WAI UA Telecon for July 28th, 1999

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

Agenda

Open Action Items

• CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list.
• IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending
• HB: Ask Alan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations. open
• IJ: set up call with Judy JG, IJ to discuss f2f
• RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed.
• JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people
• IJ: Review member participation for next week
• JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon

Discussion

• F2F meeting dates and location
• Proposal checkpoints for Guideline 9: Help Orient the User http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html
• Reordering Guidelines in order of importance

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Cathy Laws
Gregory Rosmaita
Marja Koivunen

Regrets: Jim Allan
Glen Gordon
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile

Completed Action Items

• IJ: Send similar request to IG. pending ( asked CMN to copy his message to IG)
• JG and IJ: to id who has contributed in the past, to contribute more or review existing materials, then contact people (phone discussion held on 27 July 1999)
• JG: and JA: review 9 and propose consolidation of items deadline tomorrow afternoon http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html

Continued Action Items

• CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list.
• HB: Ask Alan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations.
• RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed.
• IJ: Review member participation for next week (waiting for response from Judy Brewer)

New Action Items

• JG/IJ: Will finalize dates for next F2F by next teleconf 4 August and announce on 5 August.
• GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a frameset context.
• IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. Also, look into bidi support.
• IJ: Write a proposal to combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded something like: "Make available information about a focused link to to enable the user to decide whether to follow the link. In particular, make available whether the link has been visited and whether it involves a fee."
• GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any information made available to the user).

Minutes

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0050.html

Reference Document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/

Review of open action items

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.

Discussion

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:

1. a) 30 Sept - 1 Oct (at a developer site)
2. b) 9-10 Oct (after ATIA, in Orlando)

IJ: Any known constraints?

• MK: October 9-10 might be difficult.
• CL: Both ok.
• HB: Both ok.
• IJ: Both ok.
• JG: Both ok.
• DP: Both ok.
• GR: Both ok. Would prefer 9-10.

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.

Discussion of proposed changes to checkpoints in Guideline 9 on orientation [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html

JG: Goals:

• Create more general checkpoints.
• Reduce the number of checkpoints.

IJ: Info lost in generalization. Not verifiable if too general.

Proposed Checkpoint: Provide summary information about the current view [Priority 1, Both].

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:

• Support language correctly when supported
• Don't do the wrong think when not supported.
• Identify language changes.

Conclusions for langauge checkpoint(s):

• Some language-related checkpoint(s) are important since used in WCAG 1.0 and required for access.
• Checkpoint should stand alone.

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.)

Discussion of Proposed Checkpoint: Provide information about the attributes of a current element.

IJ:

• i. Info not always in attributes (could be dynamic, could be in elements).
• ii. No accessibility issue conveyed by checkpoint.

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:

• a) Combine 9.16-9.18 into one Pri 3 checkpoint worded something like: "Make available information about a focused link to to enable the user to decide whether to follow the link. In particular, make available whether the link has been visited and whether it involves a fee." Other examples: language of target, external, etc.
• b) Rationale: People browser by tabbing among links.
• c) Techniques for providing this information. MK: You may not want by spoken language always. You may want sounds to indicate that a fee is required, etc.

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).

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.