Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, January 20th
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038
No review of action items or announcements today
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Dick Brown (joined late, left early)
RESOLVED: The Working Group agrees to move to Candidate Recommendation based on the resolutions below. The WG agrees to let Jon, Ian, and Judy do scheduling of the CR period. We will inform the WG.
Refer to proposal by Ian
KB: Do we need the first checkpoint of two? What would go under that one?
JG: Things like moving keys closer together, using mnemonic commands, etc.
DA: In the second proposed checkpoint, change "frequently used commands" to those preferred by the user as frequently used.
KB: How will vendors verify satisfaction? You're basically requiring access to most commands since "frequently" is not well-defined.
JG: Refer to unix resources files for how key access specified.
DP: Put key bindings in a profile.
Resolved: Ian's proposal accepted.
Action Ian: Incorporate changes.
Refer to Ian's proposal
IJ: What does it mean to inform the user of content changes through the user interface? Also, what does it mean to inform the user of user interface changes through the UI?
DA: What about author-initiated (e.g., through scripts). Recall that one of the issues had to so with changes due to scripts that happen in a separate viewport.
GR: Add to list of useful information about a link: following the link will open a new window.
DA: If you just notify the AT, the user doesn't know that he or she should ask for that control.
DB: What kind of changes to content are we talking about?
GR: Content changes that occur without user intervention: scripts, refreshes, etc.
DB: I think a lot of responsibility here belongs to the author. The author should author, for example, so that the user gets a message about the changes.
JG: Even if changes are announced, the user will have to explore the document/user agent to find out what the changes were.
IJ: Consider the example of the MS home page; you tab to links and a popup menu appears.
JG: Note that notification to ATs is required by another checkpoint.
Proposed: Delete 9.1
Proposed: Change priority of 3.9 to P2 and downgrade 9.1 to P3.
MQ: I don't want to rush things to get the document done...
IJ: I think we are rushing it.
GR: 9.1 has, and 3.9 doesn't, alerting the user to changes.
- Delete 9.1
- Raise priority of 3.9 to P2.
HB: "Redundant" is not printer and screen, but different modalities.
Action Ian: Incorporate changes.
Refer to HB's comments
Action IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation is dated. Propose as a note to handle this.
DA: There is precedent for this.
- No changes to current wording
- Use Ian's comments in techniques:
DA: Also, document what event notifications are made available through APIs.
Action Ian: Edit techniques.
Refer to JG's proposal:
- No change, discuss in techniques (which need work)
- Add statement about synchronization between user actions with the AT and what's going on in the general purpose UA. If you are forced to way an extra 20 seconds, totally disorienting.
Action Ian: Add a statement about orientation.
JG: Lack of specificity (minimal requirement) concerns me and I don't want to raise the priority in that case.
- Leave checkpoint 10.8 a P3 until we have a more specific proposal.
- This is not an issue to hold up CR.
- This work is being carried out in the EO WG.
Refer to JG's proposal.
JG: If you can't change the input config, the documentation suffices. Also, the API requirement is covered by 5.2 in conjunction with the 10.1 and 10.2 (actually, 10.3) requirement to make info to the user through the user interface.
Resolved: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3.
Action Ian: Edit the checkpoints accordingly.
Refer to Ian's proposal:
- Content + UI
IJ: Can we be more specific about "interference"?
GR: My main concern is focus.
DP: I want "flag me" but "don't require action"
IJ: Is it only a focus issue? Spawned windows are annoying and may cause problems for users with cognitive disabilities. Might be a problem for motor disabilities moving windows out of the way.
GR: You need an alert mechanism in order to know that a new window has appeared.
- Use old 4.15 but add prompts, messages, other windows.
- Add a checkpoint to ensure user control of focus changes. P2.
DP: Move some of my 1.5 techniques to new checkpoints.
Action IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP.
JG: This was sent to the WAI CG and copied to all the WGs. The UA WG on its own is not required to add a definition. This should be added later if the CG creates a definition or document.
Resolved: No change in the Guidelines.
Refer to JG proposal:
JG: Last call reviewers:
Liam Quinn : Leave as is with current priorities.
Jon Gardner: Merge, leave as P2
Eric Hansen: IJ thinks he said merge; don't recall priority.
Martin Duerst: Author specified at least as important as user specified.
GR: I object to the proposal. Keyboard is vital to access today. I've proposed a number of techniques.
How many people agree: DA, JG, DP, HB, KB
How many people object: GR, IJ, MQ
- JG's proposal is accepted.
- Objection from IJ, GR, MQ will be documented and delivered with the CR.
GR: The WAI PF is dealing with this issue.
Action GR: Draft a short minority statement.
Unanimous vote to go to Candidate Recommendation status