Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, August 25th
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
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Regrets: Denis Anson
ResolvedFor requests by Jon to RSVP, please respond privately to Jon or Ian.
GG: Are these results for internal review only? IJ:
Working group should decide ultimate scope:
a) At least Team/WG.
b) Member-visible for Proposed Rec.
c) Should they be visible when we go to Recommendation?
CMN: I think it's public by charter requirement.
JG: Yes, anything posted to the list is public.
DP: When AFB did evaluation, we sent results to manufacturer for comments before publication. We should consider this to encourage (notably assistive technology) developers to move towards conformance. MK: But is the goal to evalute the guidelines or the product?
IJ: I propose linking to these reviews from the WG home page with a proper disclaimer that these comments don't reflect consensus.
GG: This issue arose since our beta product does a better job than what's on the street. No objections.
a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about volatility of Working Drafts and products.
b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations.
Action Reviewers: Should be as specific as possible about product versions, os versions, etc.
JG: Joint meeting between UA and Web content on 26 August 1999 4:00 EST
Navigation/Grouping techniques. To be coordinated with WCAG WG at teleconference tomorrow.
RS: For at least 40% of the checkpoints: If you're developing a technology like PWWebspeak, market is users with blindness. So, turn on/off blinking images should not be imposed since not applicable.
JG: The spec says that if you don't support a particular technology (e.g., images) the checkpoint doesn't apply.
RS: What if you do visual rendering also? What if you render the Web page as would be seen by general user?
CMN: Like emacsspeak.
GR: When you talk about visual view of HomePage Reader, is this the text-only view, or general graphic view?
RS: You may want both.
GR: Specifically about HPR - when you are looking at "Netscape view", this isn't controlled by HPR. The text view is. I think that there may be a case for a third-classification. There may be dependencies, but in some rendering cases there may not be control.
IJ: I think that the tool that provides the UI is responsible for UI-related checkpoints.
GR: But onus may be on the rendering engine for some checkpoints. I think there's a case for more clarification or a third classification.
CMN: I don't agree. If HPR passes rendered info untouch, that doesn't mean they wash their hands of it.
IJ: Ian reads clause about applicability of checkpoints.
1) Is the clause sufficiently visible?
2) Does that cover the 40% you are concerned with?
CMN: For the record: I don't think two classes are useful.
IJ: Perhaps applicability clause is sufficiently flexible that two classes aren't necessary, but I hesitate to reopen that issue.
Action RS: Consider the "applicability clause" and propose rewording.
Action RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the list.
Keyboard access to select form controls when there is an ONCHANGE event handler attached to the control
Refer to GR's modified proposal:
RESOLVED: Modify checkpoint 10.6. Ian can edit the following text from Gregory:
10.6 Prompt the user to confirm the submission of form content if the submission mechanism is not explicitly activated by the user. [Priority 2]
GR: Techniques in original proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0139.html
Checkpoint proposal from Marja to freeze time-sensitive content.
MK: Make available content that depends on time in a time-independent manner. And allow people to "rewind" time-sensitive content and find out temporal context of particular content.
Same as issue 44, resolved last week to add a checkpoint for time-sensitive
IJ: Do we need more than active elements?
JA: Is a media element considered an active element?
IJ: Covered by the multimedia checkpoints.
Resolved: For now, limit to active elements.
CMN: I'd like to link this issue back to the conformance issue. It's unclear whether the SMIL player conforms as a desktop graphical browser. If it doesn't apply, who are we writing this checkpoint for. Unclear from current conformance statement that the guidelines apply to the SMIL player.
Text rendering of client-side image maps
IJ: In HTML, "alt" is required on AREA. But other ways to create image maps without requiring text attributes. "title" may not be present. These are techniques.
MK: I think we need this checkpoint.
GG: I disagree. Unless there's a way of indicating that the text links are duplications. Suppose that there's an AREA element without an "alt" attribute. We may use the URL and thus speak it twice.
GR: I agree with this concern. I'd rather the dependent user agent get information from the markup rather than the renderer get the information from duplication.
IJ: These are links and so covered by checkpoint 1.2.
a) Don't add a new checkpoint. This issue is covered by checkpoint 1.2
b) Highlight the case of image maps in comment after 1.2
c) Include techniques for image maps (e.g., getting alt text of image in link, using title, getting external text media objects for SMIL.)
Action: IJ send proposal to WCAG to propose different wording on the requirement for text rendering by UAs.
What should UAs do with metadata? (Asked for by WCAG 1.0).
IJ: Broad issue: might be keywords, supplemental info, doc relationships, natural language, navigation bar, Dublin Core, etc.
JG: Lynx, Amaya use LINK.
Action CMN: Talk to Dan Brickley about document structure and site mapping. Will send a list of tools that make use of this information.
GR: Another issue that keeps popping up for me in the guidelines: a lot say "If this happens, do this." Metadata one framework for this.
CMN: For list of links, metadata is the long way around.
JG: We need to have a list of metadata elements and attributes in HTML, SMIL, also schemas. Perhaps add checkpoints related to that which we don't already cover.
(Source means element and attribute).
Action Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
Action IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.
Action JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)
Action CMN: Propose something about schemas.
Deadline two weeks.
Value of checkpoint on volume control.
Resolved last week.
Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs?
Proposed: Add "electronic".
CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in electronic form. "Ensure that there is a version of the product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"
Resolved: Change wording of 3.1 as per CMN's proposal.
GR: Two checkpoints proposed: one for links and one for forms. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html
Action JG: Will be on agenda for next week.
IJ: See proposal
DP: Add explanation of order.
Resolved: Implement this proposal with explanation in upcoming draft.
a) Next face-to-face in November. Meeting page:
b) Following face-to-face in January
CMN: Does there need to be an implementation period during or after Last Call?
Action CMN: Send proposal about this to the list.