Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, March 3rd
Time: 12:00 noon to1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
SL: review section 1.
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week.
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs.
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques document. Deadline: Two weeks.
JG: Write proposal of what information needs to be exchanged.
JG: Propose subsets for remaining list of checkpoints to the list.
DA: Draw up a proposal for a "table interface" for ATs in relation to the discussion on checkpoint 5.4.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to navigate among tables in a document. .
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques).
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document.
2 Mar 1999 PROPOSED: Checklists for Desktop Graphical User Agents and Dependent User Agents Jon Gunderson
Agenda: [1.a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0255.html
NOTE: Web Content Guidelines [0] are in last call and comments are encouraged. [0]
Chair: Jon Gunderson (JG)
Scribe: Ian Jacobs (IJ)
Denis Anson (DA)
Marja-Ritta Koivunen (MRK)
Kitch Barnicle (KB)
Harvey Bingham (HB)
Charles McCathieNevile (CMN)
Mark Novak (MN)
Scott Leubking (SL)
KB: Propose section in techniques document on accessible documentation (Guidelines 4.1.2 and 4.1.3)
DA: Draw up a proposal for a "table interface" for ATs in relation to the discussion on checkpoint 5.4.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to navigate among tables in a document. .
JG: Write proposal of what information needs to be exchanged.
JG: Propose subsets for remaining list of checkpoints to the list.
SL: review section 1.
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD)
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week.
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques document.
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week.
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs.
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document.
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques).
(All due by March 10th unless otherwise noted)
MN: Propose text on most important standard os interfaces to use and tests for them. This will be used as the basis of text for the techniques related to Checkpoint 7.2.3 (Feb 10 draft)
KB: Remassage documentation proposal from last week based on telecon and list feedback (deadline 17 march)
CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it.
CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list.
JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation.
JG: Update issues list
IJ: Publish new group working draft
MRK: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques.
Document under review: [1.b] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-AUTOOLS-19990301 1) Review of action items CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs. Status: Continued.
IJ: Status of all: continued. a) Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD) b) Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD) c) Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week. d) Make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques document. Deadline: Two weeks.
KB: Propose section in techniques document on accessible documentation (Guidelines 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) Status: Done. [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0256.html
DA: Draw up a proposal for a "table interface" for ATs in relation to the discussion on checkpoint 5.4.3 [Priority 1] Allow the user to navigate among tables in a document. Status: Done. (Did 5.4 generically) [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0257.html
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques). Status: Continued.
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. Status: No progress. (Though Denis seems to have covered in part).
SL: review section 1. Status: No progress
JG: Write proposal of what information needs to be exchanged. Status: Done [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0261.html
JG: Propose subsets for remaining list of checkpoints to the list. Status: Done [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html 2) Kitch's proposal [2]. KB: What does documentation encompass? Manuals? Help? Both?
CMN: In Authoring Tools WG, means both. Whatever's written about the tool. Online or off is not the distinctive feature.
HB: The online help system deserves our focus.
HB: Is there an implication that the original document owner is responsible for the alternative formats.
CMN: We need to address the issue of what an open standard format is. Why XML and not PDF? What's the definition of open standard?
DA: Can we say "accessible electronic format"?
KB: There's the format of the file, then the accessibility of the document. What about the Windows help system?
CMN: How about the documentation must satisfy the WCGL? PDF is not ipso facto inaccessible.
HB: Is it adequate to send PDF to the Adobe server?
CMN: Separate but equal doesn't work. Resolved: Change wording in 4.1.2 to refer to WCGL. (Leave examples of HTML). "Ensure that all product documentation (installation documentation, help, manuals, etc.) conforms to the WCGL." - Suggested formats include HTML and XML. In Techniques: Make sure to mention installation.
Action KB: Remassage proposal (deadline 17 march)
JG: Several people have commented that 4.1.2 should be priority 1.
/* Jon mentions reasons elicited at MIT meetin */
KB: Not fair to choose this one checkpoint as the "scapegoat" to "get through" other priority 1 checkpoints. If the help system follows the other checkpoints, then I might be able to agree that a manual not be priority 1. Shouldn't choose a priority level with respect to other checkpoints. It's about accessibility. Also, there is a lot of built-in configurability, and documentation is crucial.
DA: Without documentation, impossible or difficult?
CMN: Impossible, in my opinion.
IJ: For many products, documentation or a person next to a new user is the only way to understand.
KB: I interviewed some of my colleagues. One said "We don't need extra stuff, but if the system is accessible, we have equivalent access."
MN: We work with kids from preschool to senior citizens who are not computer literate. They won't be able to or start to use tools without the documentation.
CMN: Accessible bad documentation makes those users mutually excluded. Resolved: 4.1.2 to Priority 1.
DA: At MS, their corporate policy is not to consider people with disabilities as a separate population. Ultimately, people felt this was a good policy, but the consensus on the advisory council felt that some of the tested population should have disabilities to recognize the issue.
JG: Need to discuss testing in techniques. 2) Denis' keyboard proposal (not yet completed).
DA: Note: Keyboard input doesn't imply keyboard hardware. You may be using a keyboard emulator. Need a checkpoint to use standard system interfaces.
CMN: Covered by 7.2.3. List in techniques.
DA: My sense from MS meeting was that incompatibility issues around getting keyboard information is not resolved.
MA: This feels like it should be dealt with in the techniques. Tell developers not to go around the standard os mechanisms.
Proposed by DA: Test with "Serial keys".
MA: The work we did with Java OS was to 1) expose 2) allow manipulation. Developers would have to go to great pains to work around them. In the future, shouldn't pose the same problem. Resolved: Note that priority of 7.2.3 would go up to Priority 1 since it concerns keyboard access. (Caveat: 7.2.3 might be subsumed in a later draft).
Action MN: Propose text on most important standard os interfaces to use and tests for them.
3) Issues from Cathy [3] [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0252.html
DA: See my table proposal, which downgrades one checkpoint from pri 1 to pri 2. /* Discussion of "block" */
Action CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it.
IJ: Please note that you shouldn't rely on presentation and you probably can't get that info from the DTD. You might define "block" for HTML 4.0 based on, for example, the CSS 2 default style sheet for HTML 4.0. MRK: Can Xpointer be used for that?
/* Take off-line with CMN */
Action Marja: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques. Deadline: 10 March -- Re: sequential navigation. Should sequential navigation be separated by type, or just a general one (for all active elements).
KB: If other ways of navigation are possible, not a problem to have "extra things" in a long sequence. But if there's only one mechanism, having a lot of different types of elements in the loop make it very ineffective.
JG: I think general "active elements" more important. Configurability of the sequence a second level of control. Describe implementation in the techniques document.
Action JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation.
Action CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list.
Next meeting :
10 March Regrets HB Following meeting: 24 March
NOTE: Meetings from now on will be 90 minutes.