17:34:56 RRSAgent has joined #ua 17:34:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-irc 17:35:14 rrsagent, set logs public 17:35:30 zakim, this will be wai_ 17:35:30 ok, AllanJ; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 25 minutes 17:46:46 Jan has joined #ua 17:54:30 Meeting: WAI UA 17:54:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0024.html 17:55:07 Scribe: Jan 17:55:15 Chair: Jim Allan 17:55:24 Regrets: Gregory R. 17:59:00 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 17:59:07 +[IPcaller] 17:59:19 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:59:19 +Jan; got it 17:59:27 +Allanj 17:59:50 +[Microsoft] 18:00:10 zakim, [Microsoft] is really KFord 18:00:10 +KFord; got it 18:00:31 +[IBM] 18:00:40 KFord has joined #ua 18:00:51 zakim, [IBM] is really pparente 18:00:51 +pparente; got it 18:01:34 parente has joined #ua 18:02:11 +[IBM] 18:02:20 zakim, [cklaws] is really pparente 18:02:20 sorry, Jan, I do not recognize a party named '[cklaws]' 18:02:31 zakim, [IBM] is really cklaws\ 18:02:31 +cklaws\; got it 18:02:35 cklaws has joined #ua 18:02:42 zakim, cklaws\ is really cklaws 18:02:44 sorry, Jan, I do not recognize a party named 'cklaws\' 18:03:19 Topic: WCAG comments due Feb 1. 18:03:43 JR: Didn't see any UAAG showstoppers in WCAG 18:04:06 CL: No IBM comments so far 18:04:54 CL: Already use WCAG 2.0 draft version from awhile back as IBM guidance 18:05:11 JA: I had a UAAG chat with Judy yesterday... 18:05:34 JA: She wonders about going out quickly... 18:05:44 JA: WAI 3.0 would combine things together 18:06:14 KF: So then why a UAAG2...why not wait? 18:06:22 JA: Might be a while. 18:06:44 KF: Maybe we shoot towards that rather than to version2 18:06:57 JA: JR and I talking about making v2 a quick edit 18:07:20 CL: Just get all input into Editor's draft 18:07:44 JA: IF JR and I get together...we can conference everyone in 18:08:02 Topic: CSUN presentation 18:08:13 JA: Our presentation was not approved 18:08:26 JA: But will get 10mins in Judy's WAI overview time 18:09:06 CL: Other chairs coming? 18:09:10 JA: No just me 18:09:29 JA: So what should I focus on in 10 mins? 18:09:52 KF: In Dec looking at publishing to TR 18:11:29 JR: Tentatively scheduled to go to TR in early March 18:12:02 JA: So maybe we should meet in Feb...will see 18:12:20 JA: Way cool to get draft out...so what should I talk about? 18:13:37 JA: 1 participation, 2 uaag new structure, 3 how future accessible browsers might implement Web2, 4 what new browsers controls are needed, 5 separation of core browser requirements from ATs, 6... 18:13:44 4. How the use of engineered platform accessibility APIs vs. DOM (application-specific APIs) vs. off-screen models (OSMs) and heuristics effect the user’s access to information delivered by the browser. 18:14:35 JA: So what to focus on? 18:15:15 JR: Particpation YES, new structure NO 18:16:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007OctDec/0010.html 18:16:24 (CSUN proposal email) 18:16:46 CL: Lot in PF docs about how new browsers will implement ARIA 18:17:26 JA: I have real concerns about accessibility falling apart again with Web2.0 18:17:41 CL: Not really UAAG this time... 18:18:01 CL:UAAG1 tried to drive accessibility to UA's and AT's now it's PF 18:18:33 CL: Aaron L implmenting in Firefox... 18:18:41 CL: Not sure about IE and Safari 18:19:04 CL: So not sure how to address this from UAAG perspective 18:19:47 KF: Microsoft participating but not public on what doing yet 18:20:00 KF: Very aware of what's going on 18:20:38 JA: Maybe we say we feel there are concerns about speed of tech changing and how are we going to maintain accessibility to this stuff 18:21:19 CL: From WAI perspective this stuff still being looked at...so interesting if merged. 18:21:45 JA: So general application interface side...but then inside form is a form is a form.... 18:22:36 CL: Concepts the same even if techs aredifferent 18:22:59 JA: We should also talk a bit about compliance split 18:23:12 JA: Between browser and ATs 18:24:07 CL: We could use some exa,ples from issues list to illustrate what we are wrestling with 18:24:15 CL: Slides? 18:24:18 JA: Not sure 18:25:04 JA: Will put together outline by next week 18:26:34 Topic: Charter? 18:26:46 JA: We are extended for a bit 18:26:53 JR: Yes - don't remembe how long 18:27:12 Topic: JR's proposal on 10.1 18:27:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0026.html 18:28:53 10.1 seemed a specific instance of providing associated orientation information 18:30:06 CL: other examples, nested frame and trees are different things. 18:30:09 CL: Lot of other examples you mentioneed I wouldn't have thought of... 18:30:15 CL Like sections of a doc 18:30:22 CL: Like landmark role in document 18:31:00 JR: hierarchical structure in HTML are not containers. 18:31:34 JR: would be good to add containers. 18:31:53 CL: Should also call out trees 18:33:06 CL: also colapseable/expandable content (twisties) 18:34:31 JR: Should this be paired with 2.3 conditional content 18:36:08 CL: Add "trees" as example, add "landmark" - related to use of headings/sections 18:37:43 All: discussion of hierarchy of HTML 4 headings 18:39:21 KF: AT makes implicit associations between Hx and text following it 18:41:38 Action JR: Rewrite 10.1 with issues brought up in call 18:41:43 CL: in tables also talking about row and col number 18:42:49 JR: general case: numbering pieces of content when in a heirarchy (row, column, or section 1, etc) 18:44:03 CL: If broadened out...what about label for a control 18:45:25 CL: THe word in Accessibility API's is "Relations" between objects... 18:45:39 CL: ControllerFro, Controlledby, LabelFor, etc. 18:46:30 CL: May pull in other checkpoints 18:47:19 JR: Doesn't seem to be called out anywhere else - there is one for making infoset available, and implement access features 18:47:32 JA: Seems to be stumbling on a big cross cutting requirement 18:47:56 Topic: JR's proposal for 10.2 18:47:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JanMar/0025.html 18:50:01 JR: reviews discussion from last week 18:51:29 JR: "recognized" as "content controlled" - a web 2.0 control might say I will provide my own highlight and the browser gives it control 18:52:28 JA: Think it's a lot cleaner 18:52:46 CL: Is checkpoint looking like you must use them 18:54:53 CL: Language seems stronger 18:55:12 JR: It is...before it had requirments for things not required 18:56:50 JA: Brings up "except when "recognized" as "content-controlled")" 18:57:00 PP: How does User Agent know? 18:57:11 KF: We had similar concept in other places... 18:57:48 JR: does dojo handles its own highliting 18:58:06 PP: are we talking about focus, text, element in a list 18:58:11 PP: Focus - this element is part of the Tab order.... 18:58:16 PP: or not 18:58:32 PP: Still up to user agent to allow focus to go there 18:59:04 PP: Firefox just renders regular border 18:59:08 browser does not know if dojo will provide focus border or other style. 18:59:31 PP: In ARIA could say something is "active descendant".... 19:00:13 PP: UA doesn't move focus but content could do the highlighting 19:00:51 JR: That's what I meant 19:01:26 JR: OK I will try to clean up the language to be more specific 19:01:56 I need to leave 19:03:11 -cklaws 19:03:19 -pparente 19:03:20 -KFord 19:03:22 -Allanj 19:03:28 JA: Will be tackling untouched guidelines... 19:03:31 parente has left #ua 19:03:37 -Jan 19:03:38 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended 19:03:39 Attendees were Jan, Allanj, KFord, pparente, cklaws\ 19:03:49 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:03:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-minutes.html Jan 19:03:56 RRSAgent, set logs public 19:04:02 Zakim, bye 19:04:02 Zakim has left #ua 19:04:07 RRSAgent, bye 19:04:07 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-actions.rdf : 19:04:07 ACTION: JR to Rewrite 10.1 with issues brought up in call [1] 19:04:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-ua-irc#T18-41-38