W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for January 18th, 2001

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2001
Time: 2:00-4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Review Action Items


  1. Extra telecon:
    Date: Monday, 22 January 2001
    Time: 2:00-3:30 EST
    Phone: +1-617-252-7000
  2. Next User Agent face-to-face meeting in Boston on 1-2 March 2001


  1. Update on joint meetings at all working group meeting
  2. Update on revisions to the 16 January working draft from IJ
  3. Issue 324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#324
    Proposed resolution by IJ:: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437.html
  4. Issue 327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#327
    Status: We resolved to add a requirement at 16 Nov face-to-face.
    Proposed resolution by IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088.html
  5. Issue 373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#373
    Proposed resolution by IJ: Don't raise this priority. It's already P1 to document all features that benefit accessibility. Therefore, while useful, lack of documentation of the changes specifically would not make understanding the documentation impossible.
  6. Issue 382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used).
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#382
    Status: I wrote the reviewer asking for more details and have not heard back yet except that the reviewer acknowledged reception of my request.
    Proposed resolution by IJ: Since 3.2 is about animated images, not all animated effects, scripting is not an issue. No change to the document.
  7. Issue 389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion.
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#389
    Status: I wrote the reviewer with clarifications and asked for comment. No response yet.
    Proposed resolution by IJ: We have reduced some of the conformance requirements as a result of the reviewer's comments. We have worked very hard on this conformance scheme and rejected a number of others. If the reviewer has specific suggestions, we will consider them.
  8. Issue 394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view.
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394
    Proposed resolution by IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html
  9. Issue 443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events.
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#443
    Status: The document currently requires emulation of mouse-specific controls by virtue of our requirement that the user must be able to do everything through the mouse.
    a) Do we want to require the UA to repair device-specific bindings specified by the author?
    b) Do we have evidence that the ability to simulate mouse events through the keyboard benefits the user?
  10. Issue 445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#445
    Proposed resolution by IJ: UAAG 1.0 is designed to promote accessibility of the Web for users with many types of disabilities. Keyboard access is considered fundamental for this. This document is not designed to promote the accessibility of specialized user agents. Therefore no change to our requirements.
  11. Issue 446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG).
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#446
    Status: We have already discussed this (refer to issue 111 [1]) and resolved to leave this a priority one checkpoint. The rationale has been that if user agents don't implement features, authors will never be able to use them. Therefore, UAAG 1.0 must "lead".
    [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111
  12. Issue 447: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#447
    Status: The reviewer's comment was that the document said that the user agent should work by default. But since the document requires lots of configurability to meet the different needs of users, for which users should the document work by default? The problematic sentence in the last call draft was "Note: User agent developers are strongly encouraged to design software that conforms in the default configuration." That statement has been removed from the 13 January 2001 draft because it doesn't make sense: You don't "conform" in the default configuration. You simply conform or you don't. Therefore, unless there are objections or other comments. I would consider this issue resolved.
  13. Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]
    Source: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448
    Comment: The reviewer's comment was "Is this section referring to viewing the page or editing the page? Why would a user need to access the CSS when viewing a document?"
    Proposed resolution by IJ: Make this requirement read-only access. - We already require that a conforming user agent allow the user to select and apply user style sheets (checkpoint 4.15 in 13 Jan 2001 draft). - We require that the user be able to operate the user agent through keyboard alone. - Therefore, the user should be able to apply user style sheets through the conforming UA's user interface. ATs do not need to write to user style sheets through an API. Can people suggest a scenario where the AT would need to write to the conforming user agent's user style sheet through an API?


Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Harvey Bingham
Tim Lacy

Kitch Barnicle
Eric Hansen
Jim Allan

Action Item Summary

Open Action Items

  1. IJ, EH, AG: Propose new definitions forterms in question (equivalence, text element, etc.)
  2. IJ and EH: to review the definition of "presentation" to possibly drop URI-dependencies.
  3. IJ and EH: Work on definition of "animation" that identifies "animated image" as a special case. Also talks about script effects, style sheets effects, markup languages as being able to create animations. (Blinking not part of animations...?)
  4. JG: Talk to Al Gilman at the next WAI CG meeting about a joint meeting with UA, PF, and Voice WG (or participants) to discuss accessibility issues.
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
  5. JG: Send screen shots of directional techniqes
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
  6. JG: Implementation information for guideline 2
  7. JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech implementation issues. Notably UA and AT wanting to use the same synthesizer engine.
  8. JG: Create issue list for things that need to be addressed in the next version of the document
  9. DP: Send information about tools that allow mouse binding reconfiguration
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
  10. GR: Review checkpoints in Guideline 10 for implementation information
  11. GR: Talk to AFB about captioning and positioning (deadline 1/18/2001)
  12. JA: Review checkpoints in Guideline 4 for implementation information
  13. MQ: Send more details about control of speech parameters for the techniques document based on OpenBook. (deadline open)
  14. KB: Submit technique on providing information on current item and number of items in search

New Action Items

  1. IJ: Add these resolutions for issue 324.
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html
  2. IJ: Add IJ proposed checkpoint for character set API support for issue 324
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html
  3. IJ: Ask Philippe Le Hegaret about read only suport for DOM style module and alert the WG
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Update 8.8 techniques.
    Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116
  2. IJ: Get wording from Martin for thisrequirement (e.g., "conform", "implement", etc.) for issue 327
    Done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088.html
  3. IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add TeX, RTF, PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
    Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116
  4. IJ: Add clarification statement to checkpoint 7.3 to the document
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
    Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation
  5. IJ: Add to directional navigation to techniques to checkpoint 7.3
    Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html
    Done: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#gl-navigation

Link to Minutes

Copyright  ©  2001 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.