Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, April 7th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document.
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
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.
MN: will post information on information exchange and DOM
JRG: respond to MK on multi-media posting
JRG: Post a message saying that the checklist subgrouping will be integrated into the next working draft based on Jon Gundersons proposal
HB: ACTION post issue on keyboard remapping from the WAI discussions at CSUN
RR: Respond to HB posting of issue related to work and ideas at MS
RR: Write a description of how a browser could expose its internal object model to other processes including the ability to run a module of the AT to run in the process. DEADLINE: One week.
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information).
DA: will write techniques for 5.5.3 and 5.5.4
Editors: Integrate checklist subgrouping into next working draft based on JRGs proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html), individual comments can be sent to the list for discussion
RS: Write a proposal for the Techniques Document for loading an assistive technology for direct access to the browsers DOM. DEADLINE: One week.
CMN: Rewrite 7.2.2 the way CMN would like to see it.
AG: Turn 7.2.1 into a guideline with checkpoint.
IJ: Discuss comments with Judy Brewer and Jon Gunderson: COMMENTS from BORIUS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0341.html
(please review current working draft on keyboard guidelines and checkpoints)
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present:
Rob Relyea
Harvey Bingham
Charles McCathieNevile
Denis Anson
Marja Koivunen
Mark Novak
HB: Table proposal for techniques document.
CO: Review checkpoints and list those where OS conventions should be elicited. (removed since he has withdrawn from active participation in the working group)
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. (will add to next WD)
JRG: respond to MK on multi-media posting
HB: post issue on keyboard remapping from the WAI discussions at CSUN
RR: Respond to HB posting of issue related to work and ideas at MS
DA: will write techniques for 5.5.3 and 5.5.4
IJ: Discuss comments with Judy Brewer and Jon Gunderson: COMMENTS from BORIUS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0341.html (todays minutes)
Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3.
RR: Write a description of how a browser could expose its internal object model to other processes including the ability to run a module of the AT to run in the process.
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information).
Editors: Integrate checklist subgrouping into next working draft based on JRGs proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html), individual comments can be sent to the list for discussion
RS: Write a proposal for the Techniques Document for loading an assistive technology for direct access to the browsers DOM.
AG: Turn 7.2.1 into a guideline with checkpoint.
CMN: Rewrite 7.2.2 the way CMN would like to see it.
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have requirements on UAs.
IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching.
CMN: Write a proposal to address different navigation functionalities.
SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS: Carried over (except for editorial):
RR: Respond to HB posting of issue related to work and ideas at MS Status: Done but not on list yet.
RR: Write a description of how a browser could expose its internal object model to other processes including the ability to run a module of the AT to run in the process. Status: In Progress - five-step process. DEADLINE: One week.
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information). Status: Not done.
RS: Write a proposal for the Techniques Document for loading an assistive technology for direct access to the browsers DOM. DEADLINE: One week. Status: Not done (Rich not on call)
CMN: Rewrite 7.2.2 the way CMN would like to see it. Status: Not done.
ACTION: IJ: Write Danny Weitzner to find out of ecommerce folks (fee links) have requirements on UAs.
CMN: Write a proposal to address different navigation functionalities. Agenda Item 1) Review of action items:
HB: (Deadline 25 March): Table proposal for techniques document. Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0007.html Editors: Add Cross link in 5.2.4 (and 5.2.6) to 7.3.3. Status: Not done.
CO: Review checkpoints and list those where OS conventions should be elicited. Status: Dropped since Chuck not active in WG.
CO: Review 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for wording and priority. Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0355.html IJ: Eric Hansen review of WCGL intro. I will compare and take into account. Status: Not done.
MN: will post information on information exchange and DOM Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0383.html
JRG: respond to MK on multi-media posting Status: Not done, but perhaps dropped.
JRG: MK, what's the status of "bugs" in SMIL?
MK: Discussion going to PF and SYMM WGs this week.
JRG: Post a message saying that the checklist subgrouping will be integrated into the next working draft based on JRG's proposal Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0387.html
HB: ACTION post issue on keyboard remapping from the WAI discussions at CSUN Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0363.html Issues: Get similar mappings across platforms. But may not be identical.
CMN: But doesn't fly cross-platform due to people's expectations for the platform.
RR: Write a description of how a browser could expose its internal object model to other processes including the ability to run a module of the AT to run in the process. DEADLINE: One week. Status: In Progress - five-step process.
RR: Rewrite 7.2.2 as you want it (centered around information). Status: Not done.
DA: will write techniques for 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 Status: Done. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0008.html Editors: Integrate
DA: checklist subgrouping into next working draft based on JRGs proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0254.html), individual comments can be sent to the list for discussion Status: Not done.
RS: Write a proposal for the Techniques Document for loading an assistive technology for direct access to the browsers DOM. DEADLINE: One week. Status: Not done.
CMN: Rewrite 7.2.2 the way CMN would like to see it. Status: Not done.
AG: Turn 7.2.1 into a guideline with checkpoint. Status: Done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0003.html Agenda Item 2) Address comments from Olivier Borius
IJ: Discuss comments with Judy Brewer and Jon Gunderson: COMMENTS from BORIUS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0341.html Ian's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0391.html a) 5.3.5: Knowing the number of visited links.
RS: We expose this through MSAA but, for reasons of privacy, we don't want to expose through the object model. (Security issue).
CMN: But you can hack that from cache files.
RS: Cache not available through object model.
IJ: Not saying which are visited, but the number of visited.
MN: If the question is just the Web page in view, this can be done by walking the Web page. Queries based on style information. In short, there are techniques for providing this information.
HB: Would also be interested in navigating among unvisited links.
IJ: Are these things techniques for a more general checkpoint on context info?
MN: Propose making this a technique for link navigation.
JG: Sounds like people want to make this information available.
IJ: Why does exposing through MSAA and DOM differ? Why more secure in that case?
RS: @@scribe missed answer@@. Client scripts pose more security issues. Resolved: This wil be a technique of 5.3.6. b) 6.1.11: Should this be broken into three checkpoints? RS: Today, no browser will tell you if loading has stalled.
IJ: My NN says "Stalled" in the status bar.
CMN: Lynx gives you a download rate.
RS: Our object model tells you that the document ready state has moved to "interactive". You can enter info in forms, scroll, etc. i) Separate "fee status" from others.
DA: Belongs in 5.3 (Accessible links)
Action IJ: Write Danny Weitzner an email about this. ii) Resolved: Make 6.1.11 a priority 2. Agenda Item 3) Navigation/Search Functionality review. Refer to list of checkpoints in the agenda [1] that involve navigation and searching.
IJ: About "Find next element with same attribute/font (proposed DA)" I protest this one since contradicts WCGL.
DA: Restate: Don't have separate keyboard command for every attribute. Don't want to reveal too much about elements/attributes.
IJ: What does "looks like" mean?
JG: Just go to the next element of the same type.
IJ: What is this proposal addressing?
DA: Reduce number of keyboard commands.
MK: I think this is a good idea, but if you have a structural element (e.g., table), do you look for next cell or next table.
HB: I'd like to be able to go from start tag to end tag.
MK: Navigate the document tree. But a semantic tree, hide the tree structure.
RR: You still have a problem of getting to the first link.
IJ: (attempting to sort these all out):
a) There are two topics being mixed here: Keyboard access v. Functionality. Do we want to talk about keyboard access (which is covered by 4.21 and 4.2.3) or functionality.
b) Functionalities break down into non-structured (text-search) and structured navigation (document tree). (Ian notes that Al Gilman brought this up a long time ago (12 Nov 1998): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1998OctDec/0156.html)
Which specializations of the second category are most important and should have their own checkpoints? E.g., sequential access to links really important?
MK: Headers very important (Pri 1)
CMN: No, important but priority 2.
CMN: I would like these types of access to document: a) Sequential access to content (normal reading) b) Navigate structure. All the details are techniques. c) Navigate active parts of a document.
MK: Problem with structural navigation: not the semantic structure since you don't see ads and navigation bar. You want the content of the page (through the nav bar). The actual content is often in the headers so they're important.
RR: We're getting really detailed about what you can tab to. I could live with it more general. Proposed: - Navigate active elements (Priority 1) - Navigate table cells within a table (Priority 1) - Search on text content (Priority 1)
IJ: What about attribute values?
HB: Want to search attributes that provide descriptions - Document tree navigation (Priority 1) (explored in Techniques)
CMN: In my response to "Block level" elements, found that "block-level" is rather poorly defined.
CMN: If your navigation is paragraph to paragraph, but paragraphs are short, not really useful.
JG: I think that block navigation is very important.
IJ: Does page-down and page-up address this?
JG: No, that's a visual rendering issue.
Action CMN: Write a proposal to address different navigation functionalities.