Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, December 15th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: MIT Bridge (+1) 617-258-7910 (wrong number, actual number is (617) 252-7000)
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Jim Allan/Ian Jacobs
Gregory J. Rosmaita (Joined at 12:15)
Harvey Bingham (Joined at 12:15)
Chair note: The wrong telephone number was provided by the chair in the announcement for the telecon and 6 members of the group called into the announced phone number. Two people eventually called the number the group was scheduled to be on. The chair apologizes to the working group for providing the wrong information.
NOTE: Jon will schedule extra teleconference scheduled for 5 January at 12pm ET
NOTE: Starting 6 January, standard teleconference times will be at 2:00-3:30 pm ET. with a new number (617) 252-1038
/* Jim Allan scribe */
1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
2.IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of content even if it passes content off for rendering.
3.IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental positioning control in multi-media
4.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
5.IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list.
6.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add functional limitation
7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
8.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
9.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques document
10.IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list
11.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content
12.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
13.JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December - done
14.JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin -done
15.JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to multi-media
16.JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG -done
17.JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the CG for consideration in WAI definitions - done
18.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is important for users with impairments.
19.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 - his are in, waiting on IE Team-pending
20.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. -pending
21.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use in Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry, show sounds, ...). -pending
22.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
23.DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
24.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to the list.
25.JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list. -done
26.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions
27.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
28.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
29.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending
30.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
31.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
32.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list
33.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 -pending
34.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.
1.Web Content is rechartering - announced - 2 stage process, 1.1 version, then work on major revision
2.New telecon day and time for working group start on 6 January 2000 Thursdays, 2-3:30pm (EST, USA), on Longfellow Bridge (+1-617-252-1038)
Are we obligated?
Showing implementations to director and in techniques document?
jg: review-new stage of recommendation. Proposed Rec-Candidate (implementation period-demonstrate that guidelines are implementable)-Full Rec. Our obligation-that our technical guidelines are usable by vendors, show an example of each checkpoint in a browser or demonstration project. Where no clear implementation get a vendor to make an example.
rs:will it push out timeline?
jg: should not puch out timeline. rs would be a good resource for DOM demonstration, not asking for commitment. need examples of guideline 5....other comments
rs: want to become more involved in DOM working group
jg: look through techniques, and fill in blanks
mq: send information to reviewers about new process
jg: reviews might not know about new process
mq: feedback about status of document
jg: Denis Anson brought WHO def to f2f. jg brought to coordination group...CG those defs are medical model, contemporary-more positive, inclusive. Many disability groups do not like WHO def. CG recommends using standing def. in the current document. Comments....
mq: so we don't have to change anything. its all personal preference
jg: good for keeping in harmony with other documents, and Judy Brewer would balk. Issue closed. no decension in group.
jg: coordinate with AU - not addressed in their document. should not have dependencies. may have a problem with web content. WCGL is not chartered hard to get together. send proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal. Action item for Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson.
Action JG: Contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson, Ian .send proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal.
rs: on 10-1 provide input to api
jg: Ian has action on API issue. lets focus on priority
jg: allowing user to change input bindings
mq: changing 10-1 priority
jg: priority ok
rs: priority ok
db: priorty ok
Resolved leave priorites as is
ja: how does this apply to gui browsers
jg: poll group all ok with P2
Resolved: 4.16 P2
Resolved 5.2 revised 2 times
/* Ian Joins */
/* Ian becomes the scribe */
For checkpoint 8.3:
* Some agreement that the outline view is a technique for navigation.
a) 8.5 in 6 December draft now Priority 3.
b) Clarify that the view need not be active. Clarify that this is a technique for 7.7
For checkpoint 8.3 in 6 December draft:
RS: A lot of non-disabled users don't have access to this information.
IJ: Is it a lot extra effort to follow the link and then hit back?
RS, DB: This is a usability issue.
JG: What are the implications to the UAs? Exposing the history list to the AT?
MQ: I find visited links to be useless. The information I get sometimes is unreliable.
DB: I don't if the history list is available programmatically. I suspect it is.
RS: I think so too.
Resolved: Priority 3
For checkpoint 10.3 in 6 December draft:
Resolved: Priority 2 (same)
For checkpoint 10.6 in 6 December draft:
DB: Do OS profiles count?
RS: What about hand-held devices?
Resolved: Leave as P2 but clarify in the checkpoint text that this is for operating systems where it's possible to identify oneself as a specific user.
For 5.3, resolved per ftf decisions.
/* Gregory joined */
/* Harvey joined */
/* DB leaves */
IJ: Is it P1 to be able to trigger some functionalities (non-configurable) with a single key?
RS: Does this include closing the application?
JG: That's the problem, you don't know what people want.
RS: Single key could be hit multiple times. But this gets messy.
GR: Proposed useful baseline for deciding what's necessary for single-key access: there are many single actions that you find on a menu bar. Perhaps start by saying "For all single actions enabled by the UI".
IJ: In Word, for example, you can put buttons for each functionality on the tool bar.
RS: You probably want to exclude author-defined access keys.
GR: There's a difference between serial single-key strokes and modifier keys (two at once).
JG: Doesn't seem to me to be impossible to active functionalities without single key.
IJ: What does "single key" mean:
a) Not two keys at once?
b) Single action?
RS: Real killer is requiring the user to hit several keys simultaneously.
* Move first two sentences from 1.4 to note for 10.7
* Add a note about single key access to 10.7
* Add a cross-reference from 1.4 to 10.7
Action Ian: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark, Mark Novak (cc the list).
Action JG: I will request the bridge for 5 and 12 January at 12:00 EST for extra conference calls to clear the issues list by early January.