W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

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


Open Action Items



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

Continued Action Items

New Action Items


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.


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?

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]


JG: Goals:

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:

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.)

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


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).

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.