Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, March 10th
Time: 12:00 noon to1:00 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.
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques document.
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week.
IJ: Publish new group working draft
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs.
CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it.
CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list.
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques).
KB: Remassage documentation proposal from last week based on telecon and list feedback (deadline 17 march)
JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation.
JG: Update issues list
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)
MRK: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques.
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document.
Sequentuial navigation changes in 9 March 1999 draft
Video checkpoints related to captioning and descriptions in 9 March 1999 draft
Combine loading status and summary information into one checkpoint 9 March 1999 draft
Searching for links based on attributes in 9 march 1999 draft
Support for multiple (human) language support (IJ)
Changes in document content proposal (CMN)
Technique document action items
Agenda [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0295.html
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Denis Anson
Marja Koivunen
Mark Novak
Charles Opperman
Scott Leubking
Charles McCathieNevile
JG: Tell WG when DOM meeting will happen.
CMN: Post response to WG.
MK: Draft techniques related to multimedia.
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
CMN: This is a general concern and is applicable for other checkpoints.
CO: (with reservations from CO): Review checkpoints and list those where OS conventions should be elicited.
CO: Review 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for wording and priority.
IJ: Eric Hansen review of WCGL intro. I will compare and take into account.
Group: Review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html
6.2.1 is Priority 1 (General sequential access, 9 March 1999 WD).
0) 4.3.3 Keyboard elements that use access key.
DA: How do UAs find access keys?
JG: Need to expose access key info to ATs. The biggest problem is how key combinations work.
CO: IE4 and IE5 support accesskey. See microsoft.com/enable. 1) Review of action items: SL: review section 1. Status: Done. Will resend to archives.
ACTION IJ: Eric Hansen review of WCGL intro. I will compare and take into account.
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.3: Clarify the meaning of the text and provide example in techniques document (10 Feb WD) Status: Done.
IJ: Checkpoint 5.2.4: Clarify the meaning of audio tracks (10 Feb WD) Status: Done.
IJ: Add/delete indicated checkpoints from last week. Status: Done.
IJ: will make explicit the "overlap" of DOM and other APIs in the techniques document. Status: Continued.
IJ: Publish new group working draft Status: Done.
CMN: Draft a more general proposal for additional UAs. Status: unsure.
CMN: Investigate definition of "block" and desired properties of it. Status: Done.
CMN: Send comments on sequential navigation to the list. Status: Done.
DA: Propose section in techniques document about guideline 4.3 (IJ: See for example 1.4 of Web Content Techniques). Status: Done.
KB: Remassage documentation proposal from last week based on telecon and list feedback (deadline 17 march) Status: Continued
JG: Propose a technique about implementing sequential navigation. Status: Done after conversation with Ian. Integrated into 9 March draft.
JG: Update issues list Status: Dropped.
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) Status: Done.
MRK: Create list of SMIL features in 7.3 of techniques. Status: Done.
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. Status: Done 2) Review of changes in 9 March draft. a)
New checkpoint 6.2.1
SL: Forces people with disabilities to have a better understanding of pages than non-disabled people. As a user, I don't want to know about elements and attributes.
CO: I agree. Keyboard has to be scoped (hundreds of elements on the screen at a time). Pattern matching of text to reach active elements. /* Charles McCathieNevile joins */
SL: Definition of active elements bothers me.
IJ: I don't agree for links and form controls.
SL: Long description is not a piece of interaction.
IJ: But it's a link. Action
SL: Propose a definition of active element.
DA: Inefficient if you only have sequential.
SL: Something that allows people to be competitive should be priority 1.
JG: We chose priority one because we needed to indicate what is critical.
CO: Buttons and links starting to merge. Straw poll about 6.2.1 v. other classes of navigation: DA, CO, IJ, CMN: Agree.
SL: All should be priority 1.
JG: We only need 6.2.1
MK: Are different classes of sequential navigation? Must think about user needs (CO: Hallelujah!).
CO: I don't like the term "form". There aren't really forms on the Web (although the FORM element may be used). Let's focus on forms.
IJ: Forms as scoping mechanism are important: knowing you've left one form for another.
CO: Point well taken, but minority case.
RESOLOVED 6.2.1 is Priority 1 (General sequential access).
SL: You're searching for functionality, not text.
CO: That's a function of the user interface of the device they're using. UAs could subtype based on type. ATs could add this functionality. No resolution about priorities / existing of related checkpoints. b) Priority 4.1.2 changed to Priority 1 No comments. c) Deleted 4.3.4
DA: Question priority of 4.3.2. Need to find out what keyboard bindings are to use them. CMN: I agree (and have done so in email).
DA: Also think 4.3.3 priority 1 for the same reason.
JG: Put to priority 2 since one could be assisted.
IJ: That's not a valid reason. People need independent control.
IJ: Notification of changes.
DA: This is finding out what's changeable, not what's changed.
JG: Do we want the person to be able to know these things independently.
NOTE: Some people would like to raise priorities of 4.3.2 and 4.3.3
DA: We're merging and separating checkpoints. In merging and until interdependencies established, can't set priorities.
CO: Disagree with term "binding".
IJ: Distinguish pre-defined bindings and user-configured ones.
CO: Proposed 4.3.2/ "Ensure that keyboard access is properly documented" (for default and user-modified).
CO: Don't expect software to "document" dynamic keystrokes. a) Configuration process must be accessible (4.2.1).
DA: Configuration mechanism should be accessible and be the way to find out bindings that way.
ACTION CO: Review 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for wording and priority.
Checkpoints 4.4.13./4.4.14
JG: Currently priority 3 both of them.
No comments.
NEW CHECKPOINTS: 5.2.4 and 5.2.6
SL: How will they know which to choose?
CO: Currently, with SAMI and Windows, we have OS flags that give clues to media interfaces that say "User needs captioning". I recommend (1) to follow OS conventions (2) allow choice.
Proposed: ACTION Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
CMN: This is a general concern and is applicable for other checkpoints.
ACTION CO (with reservations from CO): Review checkpoints and list those where OS conventions should be elicited.
/* DA leaves */ f) 5.5.5 Provide the user with access to any label explicitly associated with a form control. [Pri 2] No comments. g) Review of checkpoint subgrouping (Desktop UAs and dependent ATs).
CMN: I have about four points of disagreement: a) 5.4.1 should apply to both. (Basic technique: increase font size).
CO: I don't understand that. Suppose user increases font size, how do they get access to a single cell.
CMN: Allow selection to be placed on a single cell.
CO: I need to be able to navigate to and select table cells?
CMN: That's my preferred solution. Another solution that is low-hanging fruit (for IE4 in particular): include displaying borders as a standard style sheet property and provide a mechanism to scroll down and across.
CO: Positioning the viewport is obvious.
CMN: Does that make it bad?
CO: Drop the second part about "Make sure you can see it."
IJ: Ability to select table and table cell also discussed in other email. Would provide a solution. This is an issue to be discussed by the
WG: is such a selection mechanism required/important/interesting?
MN: There are some issues there in particular w.r.t. mobile phones.
ACTION CMN: Post response to WG.
ACTION Group: Review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html
The WG approves this draft being made public after IG review and any WG proposed changes.
Additional action items:
ACTION MK: Draft techniques related to multimedia.
NEXT MEETING: 24 March There will be a DOM meeting on either 24 March or 31 March during the normal telcon time.
ACTION JG: Tell WG when this will happen.