W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for August 4th, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, August 4th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000


Open Action Items


  1. F2F Meeting for late September or Early October
  2. Continue discusion of proposal to changes in checkpoints for Guideline 9: Help Orient the User
    Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0036.html
    Last weeks discussion: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/07/wai-ua-telecon-19990728.html
  3. Issue #59: Reordering of guidelines to place more important guidelines at the beginning of the documenthttp://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-table.html#59
  4. Outline proposed by IJ for techniques for accessing web content (Guideline 7)


Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:Gregory J. Rosmaita
Mark Novak
Harvey Bingham
Kitch Barnicle
David Poehlman
Judy Brewer
Richard Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:Jim Allan
Glen Gordon
Alan Cantor

Completed Action Items

Continued Action Items

New Action Items


Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0072.html

Summary of New Action Items

DP: Send reference to the mousetrap to the list.

ACTION JB:Follow up with W3C meeting planner and Microsoft for 11-12 October. Backup plan for Florida after ATIA (Sun 10-11).

ACTION IJ: Send proposed text for resolved checkpoints (see below) to list.

Review of Old Action Items

CMN: Copy request sent to blinux users for info about orientation to UAGL list.
Status Done.
View http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0071.html

HB: Ask Alan Cantor for links to pages where OS system keyboard conventions are documented. Also, send reference to infamous 600 combinations.

HB: Contacted him, but he hasn't sent reference.

DP: AC pointed us to info on the list.

ACTION DP: Send reference to the mousetrap to the list.

RS: Review conformance statement, and classes of browsers (HPR) see where it fits into classes, present proposal to list if needed.
Status: No proposal sent.

IJ: Review member participation for next week.
Status: Still waiting for comments from Judy Brewer.

JG/IJ: Will finalize dates for next F2F by next teleconf 4 August and announce on 5 August.
Status: Still waiting for info from Judy Brewer.

GR/DP: Review all checkpoints and document how particular issues apply in a frameset context.
Status DP: Pending. Mostly info about providing context information outside the document.

IJ: Write a proposal for dealing with natural language changes and primary identification to replace Checkpoint 9.9. Also, look into bidi support.
Status: Not done.

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."
Status: Not done.

GR: Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for guideline 9 (any information made available to the user).
Status: Pending.


1. F2F Meeting for late September or Early October

/* Ian reviews Process of going to Recommendation and anticipated timeline */

Anticipated last call: mid/late August

Anticipated Proposed Rec (AC review): mid October

Anticipated Recommendation: early December

JB: Please note that the AC review is not vote-counting. Review comments are processed by Chair, editors, WAI, W3C Team, and Director. AC comments usually result in minor changes. If major changes required, doc usually recycled as a WD.

HB: My concern is that some companies will say "If we have to do this, you will put us out of business."

JB: These are Recommendations. Yes, distinguishing "guideline" from "technical standard" is important. We have chosen wording carefully.

IJ: We need to start to focus on techniques as a strong support for the guidelines.

JB: I second and think that the doc shouldn't go to last call until this is done.

/* On Face-to-face meeting schedule */

JB: Optimal if face-to-face after last call and before proposed recommendation. Initially we wanted to have the meeting held at a developer site. We talked to Microsoft about hosting a meeting. No definite response yet. Dates we asked them to consider were 30 Sep/1 Oct at Microsoft. (Not interesting in hosting an offsite meeting). I know there is also discussion of a meeting around ATIA. In terms of timing, if the WG slips schedule on last call, the 30 sep/1 oct meeting might be too early anyway.

HB: Earlier meeting at MS ok with me.

MN: I have a conflict with 1 Oct. Would like to attend, yes.

KB: Don't know whether I would attend.

DP: Dates are ok with me.

IJ: Dates are ok with me.

GR: 30/1 no problem. I'd like to piggyback ATIA.

JB: Note that it's important that a core group my have to make hard decisions during last call/PR. Thus, a face-to-face would probably be more of a core (active) group meeting not a general call for participants. Need to set expectations about who would attend.

JB: Ensure that assitive technology developers review during last call (send messages getting review commitment in advance!). When you go to last call, send reminder message, then follow-up during last call to ensure they have responded.

/* Rich joins */

Also discussion of piggy-backing with Closing the Gap (21-23 Oct).

IJ: Problem of communications during the last week of the year - Comm Team will not take a document to Recommendation during the holidays. Thus, if we slip, we slip until January.

JB: There's a lot of tight internal scheduling that needs to be done and that would be difficult during the holidays.

JB: Do you need more time?

IJ: I think the guidelines are almost stable. I think the techniques document needs work before going to last call.

JB: While the Techniques don't go to last call, without them too many questions.

RS: A lot needs to be done in the Techniques Document. The Guidelines look good.

JB: Lots of key members on vacation this month as well.

JG: I'd like to get a developer to host a meeting.

GR: Yes, for AUGL that gave the WG a boost when we met at Lotus.

JG: Who's going to ATIA (in Orlando)?

JB: Me.

RS: I would go if UAGL had a meeting.

JB: Is 11-12 October in Redmond a possibility?



RS: Ok, although I'd prefer in Florida

HB: Ok.

MN: Either ATIA or Redmond

GR: Either

DP: Redmond better

KB: Dates fine, but not sure if I can go.

ACTION JB: Follow up with W3C meeting planner and Microsoft for 11-12 October. Backup plan for Florida after ATIA (Sun 10-11).

JB: If people want to talk to me about WAI resources for attending meetings, please contact Judy

/* Judy drops off */

2. Continue discusion of proposal to changes in checkpoints for Guideline 9: Help Orient the User Proposal:

Last week'ss discussion:

a) Proposed Checkpoint: Provide statistical information on document content [Priority 2]

IJ: Still seems too general to me. But I like the idea (although language would be separate for me.)

GR: Propose overarching checkpoint about configurability.

KB: What about "quantity of elements" instead of "statistical"?

IJ: Is it important to know the number of tables?

RS: I think that's useless info, especially if tables are used for formatting.

DP: Provide information about the number of active elements in a document?

RS: I think that the number of headers is important. Yes, it's important to know what context you're in.

IJ: I think that providing a structural view is more important than knowing the number of headers.

GR: Structured view very important.

MN: Knowing the number of data tables is important. I agree with Ian number of headers not helpful, but knowing heading levels is.

JG: Is knowing the size of the document useful? Characters, bytes, etc.?

DP: Characters less interesting than percentage of document viewed.

IJ: Like proportional scrollbars, but available also non-visually.

RS: Good thing to know where you are in the DOM (how much has been viewed). Don't know that that's available today.


ACTION IJ: Send proposed text for resolved checkpoints to list.

For visited links, GR proposes that this be technique for a more general checkpoint on configuration. This will be part of his action item on configuration checkpoint. Also: info about fee, visited, external, etc.

For other proposed checkpoints:

Checkpoint: Provide access to header information for a table cell selected by the user [Priority 1, DUA]

Group: Ok

Checkpoint: Ensure that when the selection changes, it is in the viewport after the change. [Priority 2]

Checkpoint: Ensure that when the focus changes, it is in the viewport after the change. [Priority 2]

Group: Combine these two.

Checkpoint: Maintain consistent user agent behavior and default configurations between software releases. Consistency is less important than accessibility and adoption of system conventions. [Priority 3]

RS: Mention keyboard defaults explicitly.

MN: This checkpoint seems like a comment on existing checkpoints. I would rather tell developers what to do through other checkpoints. This is an inherent principle that should follow from others.

DP: I don't think this should be a checkpoint. Focus on accessibility issues directly, not higher issue. I understand the issue and sympathize, but documentation is available.

JG: The goal is to stop developers from indiscriminately changing configs.

RS: In previous meeting, Glen Gordon and I felt strongly about this one.

MN: I don't object to it but would like to see it reflected elsewhere in the document.

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.