W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for January 5th, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, January 5th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Agenda

Review Open Action Items

  1. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
  2. JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
  3. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  4. 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, ...)
  5. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  6. 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.
  7. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
  8. GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works.
  9. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  10. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  11. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  12. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  13. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Announcements

  1. New UA weekly scheduled telecon (tommorrow) 6 January 2000 at 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000106.html
  2. Protocols and Formatting are holding a FTF meeting on 26-27 January 2000 at Sun's Microsystem in Cuppertino - Silicon Valley
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/2000/01/agenda.htm

Discussion

  1. Candidate recommendation
  2. Ian's proposal for a rational document related to user agent accessibility responsibilities
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ua-resp-19991228
    Jon Gunderson response:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0005.html
  3. LC#156: Propose change in priority of 5.6 (P1 -> P2)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#156
  4. LC#158: Propose priority change (1 to 2) for checkpoint 4.1 (control of font family)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#158
  5. LC#159: Propose raise priority of 4.13 to Priority 1
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#159
  6. LC#161: Raise priority of 8.8 to P2 (highlighting and identifying selection/focus)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#161
  7. LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#162
  8. LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere with OS conventions)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#166
  9. LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#175
  10. LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint 8.7 (link information)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#176
  11. WD#179: Priority of 5.8 should be 1
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#179
  12. WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present: Jim Allan
Dick Brown
Denis Anson
Harvey Bingham
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Mickey Quenzer
Gregory Rosmaita

Regrets:
Charles McCathieNevile
David Poehlman
Kitch Barnicle


Action Items

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
    Done. No comments for now. I intend to do a comprehensive review of the techniques Document and will explore 3.2 in more depth at that time.
  2. IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of content even if it passes content off for rendering.
    Done. Refer to Guideline 3 rationale of 20 December 1999 UAGL. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#gl-feature-on-off
  3. IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental positioning control in multi-media
    Done. My original proposal was sent 7 December. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0655.html

    At the face to face, we decided to make incremental a technique (issue 135).
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#135

    In the 20 December 1999 UAGL, checkpoint 4.6 includes generic forward and reverse. Techniques included in 20 December Techniques document.
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#tech-control-multimedia

  4. IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list.
    Cancelled. Applicability not used in ATAG.
  5. IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
    Done.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0757.html
  6. IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list
    Done. Refer to checkpoint 7.6 of 20 December 1999 UAGL.
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991220/#tech-nav-structure
  7. IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark, Mark Novak (cc the list).
    Done. I believe this refers to meaning of "single key" access. Here are Bryan's comments
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0756.html
  8. IJ: Update impact matrix based on 20 November draft (from KB)
    Done.
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/NOTE-UAGL-impact-matrix-19991227
  9. IJ: Include language in "applicability" about portions of checkpoints related to resolution of Issue LC#138
    Done. Will appear in next draft.
  10. IJ: Verify that "synchronized alternative" not used elsewhere in techniques.
    Done. It does not appear.
  11. GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works.
    Done, contacted prodWorks and they will test

Continued Action Items

  1. IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
  2. IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
  3. IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content
  4. IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any)
  5. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3, 8.4, 8.6 to 8.9
  6. JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
  7. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  8. 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, ...)
  9. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  10. 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.
  11. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
    Satus: May already be integrated.
  12. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  13. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  14. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  15. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  16. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

New Action Items

  1. IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates JG'sand other comments.
  2. IJ: Send this resolution of issue LC#158 to the list for comment.
  3. DA: Identify the general items that apply to all software from ones in the current list in Ian's requirements proposal.
  4. EVERYONE: Review the "Unknown" category of Ian's proposal and we'll discuss them at tomorrow's meeting.
  5. RS: Send editorial comments on Ian's proposal.

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 6 January 2000 @ 2pm ET for 90 minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0002.html

1) Review Open Action Items

1.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
Status 8.3/8.4: Cancelled, though JG may check into Opera capabilities.

GR: Refer to my evaluation of Opera
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/09/uagl-hal95-19990906.html

Status 8.5: Done
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0011.html

2.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
Status: Not done.

3.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
Status: Pending.

4.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, ...)
Status: Pending. I've asked an MSAA developer for this information. See thread from Jim Allan and Ian Jacobs.

DA: There's information at the IE site on this: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm (Follow Section 1)

5.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
Status: No info.

6.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.
Status: Not done. Will ask RS a question offline.

7.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
Status: May already be integrated.

8.GR: Run LPPlayer through the guidelines. Verify with Productivity Works.
Status: Pending. Talked with both Ray and Mark. He'd prefer that the analysis be done internally by Productivity Works. They would contribute an evaluation. GR will keep us in the loop on this.

9.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
Status: No info.

10.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
Status: No info.

11.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
Status: No info.

12.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
Status: Mark is still travelling.

13.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.
Status: Not done. Ian reminded her today.

14.IJ: Refer to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0758.html

Still todo:

a) Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content

b) Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any)

2) Announcements

1.New UA weekly scheduled telecon (tommorrow) 6 January 2000 at 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000106.html

2.Protocols and Formatting are holding a FTF meeting on 26-27 January 2000 at Sun's Microsystem in Cupertino - Silicon Valley
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/2000/01/agenda.htm

3) Discussion

1. Candidate recommendation

JG: Henter-Joyce is implementing their own DOM-like API.

RS: IBM is looking at DOM for HPR.

JG: Work at CAST in their e-text reader also involves DOM.

MQ: I'll ask Mark if PWWebSpeak is using the DOM. JG will email as well.

IJ: To get to CR:
a) Resolve outstanding issues.
b) Prepare an implementation report
c) Schedule a meeting with the director.
d) Target start date: 14 January.
e) Target duration: will be determined based on implementation report, but if DOM implementations are working, then starting point would be one month.

2. Ian's proposal for "UA Responsibilities"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0755.html

IJ: Goals:
a) Is this useful?
b) What's missing?
c) How to resolve remaining ones?

DA: I think "AT" definition is too fuzzy. I think that AT's provides functionality for which an able-bodied user doesn't require extra software. Not necessarily a plug-in, may be a wrap-around. Some things that are conveniences for an able-bodied person (e.g., TV Remote control) are not just conveniences for someone with a disability because they don't have another way to do it. This may comprise the group of requirements that should be built-in natively to the desktop user agent.

DB: This document is useful for developers as well as for "critics" of the guidelines.

Action IJ: Publish a new draft that incorporates JG's comments.

DA: Some of the "Apply to all user agents" are actually "Apply to all applications". I suggest creating a "Requirements for all software" category. And these shouldn't be native but in the OS.

Action DA: Identify the general ones from the list.

Action EVERYONE: Review the "Unknown" category and we'll discuss them at tomorrow's meeting.

Action RS: Send editorial comments.

3. LC#156: Propose change in priority of 5.6 (P1 -> P2)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#156

JG: Håkon Wium Lee thinks DOM should be P2, since it turns a browser into an editor.

Some ideas:
a) Change to P2 as HWL suggests.
b) Change to P2 for write access.
c) Change requirement to be more general (as we did for UI access).
d) Leave P1.

RS: You can't fill out a form with write only access.

JG: I'm not sure that physical memory concerns is an issue. In the past, we haven't made human resource limitations a high criterion.

DA: The DOM is a special case. We're not talking about functionality here, but implementation.

JG: We've talked about this and since the DOM is platform-independent and vendor neutral, we felt is was necessary for interoperability.

HB: We may not be able to paste into the DOM something that is an audio source. The error control process has to be invoked to ensure validity.

DA: I don't think this is a big issue. Speech input is a wrap-around technology converted to movement or keyboard input.

/* DB and JG leave */

GR: My concern is time lag to implementation by ATs. People are looking to these Guidelines for quick improvement to the Web experience (say, a year). I think that we should send the "UA Responsibilities" document to reviewers of the document so we can "show them the money". (Add this concern to the "UA Responsibilities doc?)

DA: I think the time lag issue is valid for *any* standard we would promote. Therefore, we can "arbitrarily" choose the DOM.

IJ: Sounds like a FAQ: "When will browsers be accessible?"

Resolved:
1) Leave P1 for reasons of interoperability and requirement for write access.

4. LC#158: Propose priority change (1 to 2) for checkpoint 4.1 (control of font family)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#158

DA: I have a hard time arguing that it's P1. It is difficult, but not impossible.

IJ: What about some ornate font family?

DA: There are probably a few people for whom it's gibberish. But if you don't have the appropriate font on your computer, your browser will choose another anyway.

GR: Important for low vision and cognitive. But my gut feeling is P2.

JA: You can always find a font family that makes it impossible for someone to read the text. Take wingdings, for example. There may be font families that are easier or less easy to read.

DA: There are inefficient ways, but not impossible ways, to read the text (e.g., cut and paste)

Resolved:
1) Change to P2.
2) Action Ian: Send this resolution to the list for comment.

5. LC#159: Propose raise priority of 4.13 to Priority 1

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#159

DA: I think start and stop (video, audio, animation) is P1. "Start" means "start from the beginning".

IJ: You can restart from the beginning by reloading the page. Why is it P1 to stop?

DA: It may be distracting you from other things on the page.

JA: I've visited sites where audio was rendered and you couldn't stop it; different audio clips overlapped.

DA: I don't think that slow compensates for pause. Pause should be P1 as well.

HB: If you're working an audio or braille stream that is pouring out and synchronized with other content, you need to change the rate of the audio controls and stay synchronized.

IJ: Pause isn't P1 - you still have access to the content; you can start from the beginning.

DA/GR: Lack of pause may make access to content impossible for some users with disabilities. If they don't have time to stop and are forced to start again, they will never get to the end of the content.

Resolved:
1) Move "start, stop, pause, rewind, advance" to P1.

6. LC#161: Raise priority of 8.8 to P2 (highlighting and identifying selection/focus)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#161

IJ: This checkpoint means "Let me know which elements are active".

DA: Some users with cognitive disabilities need this.

JA: If the user can't find it, the function is not there.

Resolved: Raise to P2.


Copyright  ©  2000 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.