Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, August 18th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present: Denis Anson
Kitch Barnicle
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita
David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Madeleine Rothberg
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Håkon Wium Lie
Mark Novak
Jim Allan
CMN: Technique 3.3 - Propose outline of techniques for user control of
style Techniques 3.3.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0109.html
IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in
document.
Status: Not done.
IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
Status: Not done.
IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
Status: Not done.
IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
Status: Not done.
IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes
conservatively to A, B, and C..."
Status: Not done. IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative
position in the document.
Status: Not done.
IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a
link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've
got).
Status: Not done.
IJ: Checkpoint 6.12 (audio volume): Clarify that checkpoint is for native
handling of sound.
Status: Not done.
CMN: Checkpoint 9.4 and 9.6 - Write a proposal on making this or not making
this checkpoint "for dependent UAs only".
Status: Dropped.
CMN: I think "dependent/independent" is not a useful dividing line.
CMN: Technique 3.3 - Propose outline of techniques for user control of style
Techniques 3.3.
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0109.html
GR: Guideline 9 - Write a proposal for a configuration checkpoint for
guideline 9 (any information made available to the user).
Status: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html
DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
Status: Not done.
GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
Status: Not done.
HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
HB Status: No progress.
HB: 11 October is a holiday in the US and Canada.
JG: Anyone would not attend because of holidays?
Conclusion: No.
DA: I probably can't make it since I'll be at ATIA just before.
Agenda 3) Impact Matrix.
IJ: Refer to Impact Matrix being developed in GL WG [2]
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/NOTE-WCAG-impact-matrix-19990810
DA: Proposes change in terminology "functional limitation" rather than "disabilitly". It becomes a disability when the environment demands that function of you.
HB: Functional limitation may result from bandwidth, environment, etc.
Action Kitch: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy. (Thanks Kitch!) Deadline for this action 2 weeks.
Issue
#77: Validate conformance categories
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#77
Issue
#79: How do specialized browsers like pwWebSpeak and IBM Homepage Reader
conform to the guidelines?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#79
JG: Need to identify browsers, assistive techs (including input technologies), and specialized browsers with particular output in mind.
IJ: Reminder:
a) Some kind of conformance clause necessary
b) Division exists to promote interoperability.
DP: Where does browsing the Web by phone fit in? I think of guidelines based on constraints, not application type. But UA developers should be able to use the guidelines to enhance accessibility of their product.
DA: What happened to the discussion going on at different media types?
JG: Already in guidelines - you don't have to satisfy checkpoints that don't apply.
DA: If you make content available to some users, you should make it available to all users.
IJ: I don't think we should change the conformance statement unless there's a proposal for a new category. We've already covered lots of ground w.r.t. conformance.
GR: I think the impact matrix will help, notably if one can sort according to different fields.
KB: Has anyone tried to apply the guidelines to a UA?
CMN: I did this with Opera (and did so with Amaya for Authoring Tools
guidelines). Useful exercise for developers as well as editors. Håkon
took away notes, and I sent a summary [3] to the UA list.
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0098.html
CMN: In a review:
a) Indicate what's been done already
b) Ask what would be done for those not yet done (and list that as technique).
IJ: Please also indicate which assistive technologies work with which graphical desktop browsers.
Action HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
Action GR: Run Hal through the guidelines.
Action DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
Action CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines.
Action JG: Run IE through guidelines.
Action IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.
Action RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader.
GR: Ask Guido Corona to do this?
DP: Can we ask for additional assistance with evalutions that haven't been filled?
IJ: Yes!
PLEASE REVIEW using the 9 August draft [4]
[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/
Deadline for these actions 2 weeks.
Action Ian: Propose reordering to the list.
JG: Proposed that in techniques, use header markup when present. But need repair strategy for incomplete or absent header information. E.g., try using the first row and column as headers.
Action JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.
IJ: In short, present time-independent information in a time-independent manner (notably links).
DA: Helps cognitive.
MK: Helps motor as well.
JG: Also screen-reader or caption users.
IJ: Should users be able to override all synchronization?
MK: Difficult to say in the general case.
Resolved new checkpoint: Provide time-independent access to time-sensitive active elements. Priority 1. For all user agents.
MR: I think this is an appropriate narrowing.
JG: Is it an accessibility issue to know how long a video or audio track will run?
MR: Make available this information in a device-independent manner.
IJ: Covered by checkpoint 1.6.
DP: Fits into 10.5 pretty much.
DA: Does streaming work here?
IJ: Should this be part of document viewing or separate as a "multimedia" checkpoint? In other words, do I want to know that I'm 10% through the whole document, or 50% through the current clip?
MR: Could be useful to distinguish for multimedia players. However, based on my current experience with multimedia players, this information is often there. Considered useful in general.
Action Ian:
a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6.
b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6
c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6.
IJ: The issue is that some pages have scripts that cause the page to change when an option is selected. Issue of orientation and user control.
GR: Refer to my proposal [5]
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html
MR: What's the difference between never submit without asking and prompt? Indeed, a lot of Web pages have a select list that could be activated automatically, but there's also a "GO" button for older browsers.
DA: What's the screen reader behavior when you move among options without submitting?
IJ: Four situations:
Action GR: Clarify your proposal.