WAI UA Telecon for October 27th, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, October 27th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000

Agenda

Review Open Action Items

IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just W3C technologies.
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0130.html
IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0131.html
IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
IJ: Add RS proposal related to VM and plug-ins into to checkpoint for using accessible interfaces. For review next week
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
Status: Done
JG: Decide if we're ready for last call by next Weds.
Status: Postpone until 3 November telecon
JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0167.html
JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism for last call comments
JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
Status: done
HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques structure.
GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
GR: Repropose Checkpoiont 2.5 on user defined keyboard bindings so that it's clear that there should be a cascade order whereby the user has ultimate control or can concede control to the tool.
MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard navigation discussion at F2F meeting
MR: Working on SMIL techniques
CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability for next F2F meeting.
Status: done

Announcements

Looking for reviewers for last call document
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/reviewers-last-call.html
Postpone last call vote until 3 November telecon to facilitate techniques document format review

Discussion

Discussion of guidelines schedule (last call, F2F meetings, proposed recommendation)
Discussion of new techniques document layout
Issue #110: Proposed changes to Guidelines 1, 2, and 11 re: keyboard
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#110
Issue #109: Proposed rewording of Checkpoints 1.1 and 1.6
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#109
Issue #105: ACCESSKEY implementation issues
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#105
Issue #106: Proposed Abstract revision
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#106
Issue #107: Proposed new checkpoint: 6.7 Support assistive technology accessibility standards defined for plug-in and virtual machine systems used by your browser
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#107
Issue #108: Proposed checkpoint for table summary information
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#108

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Charles McCathieNevile
Mickey Quenzer
Mark Novak
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Harvey Bingham
Jim Allan
Jim Thatcher
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Dick Brown
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:
Denis Anson
David Poehlman
Kitch Barnicle

Action Items

Completed Action Items

IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just W3C technologies.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0130.html
IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0131.html
IJ: Add RS proposal related to VM and plug-ins into to checkpoint for using accessible interfaces. For review next week
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
Status: done
JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0167.html
JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
Status: done
RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability for next F2F meeting.
Status: done
CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
Status: Done. Subsumed by 110.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0157.html

Continued Action Items

IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
JG: Decide if we're ready for last call
JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism for last call comments
JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques structure (wait for next draft).
MR: Working on SMIL techniques
GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows..
GR: Repropose Checkpoiont 2.5 on user defined keyboard bindings so that it's clear that there should be a cascade order whereby the user has ultimate control or can concede control to the tool.
MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard navigation discussion at F2F meeting

New Action Items

IJ: Contact RealNetworks to agree to review last call draft when available
IJ: Update proposal for checkpoint 1.1 based todays discussion
IJ: Add Note on proposed checkpoint 1.2 that it is a specialization of proposed checkpoint 1.1
IJ: Add an example of standard output to 1.3.
Refer to RS's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0164.html
IJ: Add Note on proposed checkpoint 1.4 that it is a specialization of proposed checkpoint 1.1
IJ: Moved proposed Checkpoint 11.1 to Guideline 12 on documentation and make changes based on todays discussion
JG: Contact HR on Eurpoean reviewers
HB: Contact Steve Anderson (of Dragon Systems) to agree to review last call draft when available.
MN: Contact someone at United Cerebral Palsy to agree to review last call draft when available
MN: Repropose wording for Ian's proposed Checkpoint 1.5 described in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0157.html
DB: Contact person in Windows media group to agree to review last call draft when available
DB: Contact Tim Lacy on reviewing guidelines with IE developers. Ask him to wait until next draft (probably Monday)
DB: Propose split checkpoints about configuration.
MQ: Find someone from WinAmp, SigTuna to agree to review last call draft when available
CMN: Send info about MS Word provides this information to users
GR: Send techniques for how to provide author info.

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0161.html

1) Review action items

IJ: Repropose Guideline 7 descriptive text to include more than just W3C technologies.
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Update document based on resolutions at F2F meeting
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Redesign techniques document based on discussions at F2F meeting
Status: Pending, expected document Friday or Monday.
IJ: Propose on the list: Generalize 3.8 to apply to more than just continuous tracks : all sources of alt content.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0130.html
IJ: Add a checkpoint to turn on/off background sounds.
Status: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0131.html
IJ: Propose how the conformance checklist will be delivered
Status: Not done.
IJ: Add RS proposal related to VM and plug-ins into to checkpoint for using accessible interfaces. For review next week
Status: Done
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991022/
IJ: Follow up with Judy on FTF coordination with IBM.
Status: Pending
JG: Decide if we're ready for last call by next Weds.
Status: Postpone until 3 November meeting
JG: Before next Weds, send list of people to contact for last call.
Status: Done
JG: Include an annotation mechanism in current issues list mechanism for last call comments
Status: Not done.
JG: Talk to Wilson Craig offline about contacts for assistive technology developers who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
Status: Not done.
JB: Follow up on hosting possibilities for December F2F meeting.
Status: done
HR: Find information about European contacts who may be interested in reviewing the document during last call
Status: Not done.
Action JG: Contact HR.
TL: Get feedback from MS IE Team on usability of 5 October Techniques structure.
Status: Not done.
Action DB: Contact TL.

IJ: If he hasn't done it, wait for next draft.
GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
Status: Pending.
GR: Repropose Checkpoiont 2.5 on user defined keyboard bindings so that it's clear that there should be a cascade order whereby the user has ultimate control or can concede control to the tool.
Status: Depends on outcome of issue 110.
MN: Propose a new definition of active element, based on keyboard navigation discussion at F2F meeting
Status: Pending.
MR: Working on SMIL techniques
Status: Pending.
CMN: Write a proposal to address this checkpoint 2.3 Provide information to the user about author-specified keyboard configurations. P3
Status: Done. Subsumed by 110.
RS: Look into 9/10 December for room availability for next F2F meeting.
Status: done

2) Announcements

2.1) Looking for reviewers for Last call document. Jon has started to put together list. Please send names of people from various organizations.

(Refer to message also from HB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0174.html )

RS: Contact: Linda Boyer at IBM (Via Voice) lboyer@us.ibm.com phone 561-615-4633

Action IJ: Contact RealNetworks.

Action HB: Contact Steve Anderson (of Dragon Systems).

Action MN: Contact someone at United Cerebral Palsy

Action DB: Contact person in Windows media group.

Action MQ: Find someone from WinAmp, SigTuna

2.2) Decision to go to last call will be made at 3 November teleconf. Last call itself won't occur until a couple of days afterwards (to finish editing, compose letter to chairs@w3.org).

2.3) Techniques document.

IJ: In progress.
- New structure
- Incorporate content, including content from ftf.

MQ: Heading levels are useful.

IJ: We already use them. I'll keep in mind as I restructure

3) Issue #110: Proposed changes to Guidelines 1, 2, and 11 re: keyboard

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#110
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#109
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#105

Proposed changes [2] to G1, G2, and G11.

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/g1g2-proposal

MQ: I liked proposed text from GR:

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0172.html

1.1 Ensure that all functionalities offered through the user interface are available through input device APIs implemented by the user agent. Functionalities include installation procedures, control of the user interface, access to documentation, and configuration. [Priority 1]

IJ: Any strong objections?

RS: I agree in principle but require more clarity.

MK: I agree in principle but require more clarity.

JT: I have some. Too general.

JT: This is basically requiring keyboard input with the mouse.

IJ: Not every API allows.

MK: Why not require text input with the mouse? You can also use your eyes to designate information on the screen.

RS: Onscreen keyboards are custom applications (or may be included with the OS).

Resolved: Don't require UAs to provide native support for text input with a pointing device.

RS: People want assistive techs to work with software in general, therefore people would only use the standard API.

JT: I like this note: "Note: User agents are not required to reimplement low-level functionalities (e.g., for character input or pointer motion) that are inherently bound to a particular API and most naturally implemented through that API." However, change "Note:" to "However,".

RS: I think standard APIs should be part of 1.1.

MK: Is 1.1. more about making the functionalities accessible or about standard APIs? It's not clear to me what "API" me.

IJ: In one checkpoint, talk about all functionalites. In another, talk about use standard APIs.

Resolved: Add Ian's clarification to 1.1 changing "Note:" to "However".

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0165.html

Action Ian: incorporate this in draft.

1.2 Ensure that the user can interact with all active elements in a device independent manner. [Priority 1]

JT: I think we need to say explicitly that 1.2 is special case of 1.1.

MQ: Make clear that no x/y coords necessary.

Resolved: Add Note that this is a specialization of 1.1

Action Ian: Clarify note after 1.2.

1.3 Support standard input and output device APIs for the operating system. [Priority 1]

Ok.

Action IJ: Add an example of standard output to 1.3.
Refer to RS's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0164.html

1.4 Ensure that all functionalities offered through the user interface are available through the standard keyboard API.

OK.

Resolved: Add Note that this is a specialization of 1.1

1.5 Ensure that information output as part of operating the user agent is available through ouput device APIs implemented by the user agent. [Priority 1]

JT: I don't understand it. I don't know why it's there.

JG: Part of what this means to me is that if you write text, you should use text drawing routines so that ATs can intercept it.

IJ: Sounds like use 1.3 for me.

RS: I read 1.3 as support for the offscreen model. Support standard output APIs so that screen readers can get text.

GR: Propose: Putting technique about text drawing (from ftf) as example after 1.3.

Need clarification that 1.5 does not mean: output all text as speech or output images as sound.

DB: I don't see why we need 1.5.

MK: If you only give visual feedback for UA messages, that's unacceptable.

IJ: Previous version only spoke of messages from the UA. Technique: Use text.

MN: The more I listen, the more I think it's important to talk about redundancy. It doesn't make sense for a self-voicing UA to not be able to read its own menu.

GR, MK: I agree.

IJ: If you support an API, you have to support it consistency. Beeps are different from speech synthesis.

CMN: Following a link is a classic example of not wanting to move through two-dimensional space. Or selecting a menu entry.

PREVIOUS TEXT FROM [4]

1.6 Ensure that all messages to the user (e.g., warnings, errors, etc.) are available through standard output device APIs supported by the operating system. [Priority 1]

[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19991005/

NOTE:
1.3 is about system standards.
1.5 is about redundancy of output.

Action MN: Repropose wording for 1.5 described in [3].

On Guideline 11:

11.1 Document the default input configuration for the keyboard, graphical user interface, voice commands, etc. [Priority 1] >/h3>

IJ: Any strong objections?

JT: I have some. Too general. Difficult to understand.

MQ: I don't understand it either.

CMN: Document how the tool works.

Proposed: "Document the default input configuration"

DB: Why is this necessary?

JG: Original intent was to improve traditionally poor documentation of keyboard configuration.

JT: I don't think you should document the default GUI.

CMN: What does an icon that looks like a waffle mean?

RS: I think that 11.1 is on the right track, but that GUI is considered an output mechanism.

IJ: I left "keyboard" in to highlight.

JA: Ian defined "input configuration".

DB: I don't understand why 11.1 is there when there's a more general documentation checkpoint.

IJ: This is a special case.

DB: Proposed deleting 11.1, moving to Documentation Guideline.

Resolved: "Document the default input configuration."

Resolved: Put rationale in checkpoint Note (e.g., using quote from Nov 1998 draft). Also mention keyboard explicitly.

Resolved: Move 11.1 to Document Guideline. Note that this is a special case.

11.2: Provide information to the user about the current input configuration.

DB: Accesskey different from what the UA allows to change.

IJ: I think that source unimportant. The user simply wants to know what the current config is.

DB: If you put accesskey in as an author, it's up to the author to document it.

CMN: I disagree.

GR: In my last post, I pointed out that Accesskey is not the issue. It's an issue of user control.

IJ: Why should I tell the UA how to use TABLE? It's part of the spec.

CMN: The UA determines how links are activity. Links are provided by the author. The UA implements the mechanism. In the same way, the UA implements accesskey. The UA implements the control and decides how it's done. The author has no way of knowing what the UA will do, in fact. So the UA is the only agent that can know what to do.

DB: I think support is required, but not information about what accesskeys will work.

CMN: I would say that the opposite is true: doesn't matter whether there's support. But if there is support, the UA needs to tell the author.

DB: It's the author's responsibility to say "I proved Alt-J".

CMN: No, since in windows it will be "Alt-J", in Mac "Apple-J", etc. The author doesn't know how the support will take place.

JG: Propose two separate checkpoints for current config (one for UA-supplied, one for Author/Other-supplied)?

DB: Add one for author-supplied as a Priority 3?

RS: I think a split is a great idea. Dropping priority for author-supplied info (notably since accesskey is broken). Also, there are so many issues about scripting that the PF WG should be focusing on that.

Action DB: Propose split checkpoints about configuration.

Action CMN: Send info about MS Word provides this information to users.

Action CMN: Send techniques for how to provide author info.

Resolved: 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8 ok. ------------

Issue 106: Proposed Abstract revision

IJ: Basically an editorial issue. If anyone has comments send them to IJ

Issue 108: Proposed checkpoint for table summary information

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0092.html

HB: I think this should be a checkpoint.

JG: I think we should take out "selected table".

GR: I agree with Harvey. Think this is a UA responsibility.

To be continued at next week's call.

/* Adjourned */

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.