W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for September 15th, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, September 15th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000

Agenda

Open Action Items

  1. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. not done
  2. IJ: In document, highlight existence of "native" and "applies to".
  3. IJ: Find out about MS review of document before F2F and their participation in the meeting.
  4. IJ: Find out from Judy about NN attendance at F2F.
  5. IJ: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance at F2F
  6. IJ: Propose list of checkpoints that are "sensitive" (affect targetted UAs) and propose variable priorities/rewording for them. (Look at HPR's evaluation sent by Jim Thatcher: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0234.html)
  7. IJ: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible.
  8. IJ: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1].
  9. HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
  10. RS: Look at techniques document.
  11. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
  12. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
  13. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  14. CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on this issue to the list.
  15. CMN: Propose something about schemas
  16. MKN: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
  17. KB: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
  18. JA: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
  19. JA: Propose definitions to the list of what are the characteristics of a DGUA and a DUA.
  20. JG: Create a list of AT people to invite to F2F meeting

Discussion

  1. Finish diescussion on: Configuration Checkpoints for Guideline 9 (10 minutes)
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html
  2. Review Ian Jacobs proposal on changes in wording to some checkpoints and priorities for conformance if available before the call (15 minutes):
    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
    Issue #77: Validate conformance categories
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#77
  3. Review of impact matrix proposal developed by Kitch Barnicle (10 minutes)
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0300.html
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/NOTE-UAGL-impact-matrix-19990903
    Questions:
    1. Include mice as input technologies?
    2. Checkpoint: 9.1: Does highlighting imply visual only interfaces?
    3. Specific checkpoints related to a disability
  4. Issue #71: Titles for ABBR and ACRONYM elements (need a technique)
  5. Issue #72: What should UAs do to support author-supplied metadata?
    1. Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
      http://www.w3.org/1999/09/smilmetadatasources.html
    2. IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.
      http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#html-index
    3. JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0348.html
    4. CMN: Propose something about schemas.
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0349.html
  6. Issue #73: Text rendering of client-side image maps (need a technique)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73
  7. Issue #76: How to get to frames when the user turns off the rendering of frames (need a technique)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#76
  8. Issue #78: Ian Jacobs review requirements for window spawning
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0212.html

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Kathy Laws
Kitch Barnicle
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile (left at 1:00 EST USA)
Mark Novak (left at 1:00 EST USA)
Harvey Bingham
Marja-Riitta Koivunen

Regrets:
Jim Allan
Allan Cantor

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Find out from Judy about NN attendance at F2F.
    Status: no identified representative and contacted mozillia group
  2. IJ: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance at F2F
    Status: They will not be sending a represnentative
  3. IJ: Propose list of checkpoints that are "sensitive" (affect targetted UAs) and propose variable priorities/rewording for them.
  4. KB: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0362.html
  5. JA: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0361.html
  6. JG: Create a list of AT people to invite to F2F meeting
    Status: Done, I have sent e-mails to several developers
  7. MKN: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0357.html
  8. RS: Look at techniques document.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0356.html
  9. HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
    Status: Cancelled
  10. CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on this issue to the list.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0349.html
  11. JA: Propose definitions to the list of what are the characteristics of a DGUA and a DUA.
    Status: Cancelled, in light of IJ proposal

Continued Action Items

  1. IJ: Find out about MS review of document before F2F and their participation in the meeting.
  2. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. not done
  3. IJ: In document, highlight existence of "native" and "applies to".
  4. IJ: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible.
  5. IJ: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1].
  6. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
  7. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
  8. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  9. CMN: Propose something about schemas

New Action Items

  1. Working Group: Review IJ proposal for changes in cnformance for discussion next week
  2. JG: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
  3. JG: Ask Denis Anson to review the document
  4. JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames
  5. JG: Ask Al Gilman to come to the next meeting to talk about spawned windows
  6. IJ: Propose checkpoint wording for access to form control information
  7. IJ: Rewording of checkpoint 4.12: Allow the user to turn on and off rendering of frames
  8. HB: Submit a technique related to using for ABBR and ACRONYM elements for rendering
  9. CL: Submit a technique related to text rendering of client-side image maps

Minutes

Agenda: [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0359.html

Review of Open Action Items:

  1. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines. In progress.
  2. IJ: In document, highlight existence of "native" and "applies to".
    Status: For next draft.
  3. HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
    Status: Cancelled for Harvey.
    Action JG: Reassigned to Jon (for a student?)
  4. RS: Look at techniques document.
    Status: Not done.
  5. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
    Status: Not done.
  6. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
    Status: Not done.
  7. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
    Status: Not done.
  8. CMN: Write a proposal for moving forward on this issue to the list.
    Status: Done since transferred to Ian (about conformance0.
  9. CMN: Propose an example about what UAs can do with schemas.
    Status: Dropped.
  10. MKN: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
    Status: Done.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0357.html
  11. KB: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
    Status: Done.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0362.html For next week's call.
  12. JA: Create dependency list for user agent and authoring tools
    Status: Done.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0361.html For next week's call.
  13. JA: Propose definitions to the list of what are the characteristics of a DGUA and a DUA.

    IJ: I propose we cancel this in light of
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html

  14. IJ: Find out about MS review of document before F2F and their participation in the meeting.
    Status: IJ spoke with Dick Brown yesterday. He's supposed to get back to me.
  15. IJ: Find out from Judy about NN attendance at F2F.
    Status: IJ spoke with Judy Brewer. Am waiting for contact info. I also wrote to a guy at Mozilla.
  16. IJ: Find out from Judy about Operasoft attendance at F2F
    Status: IJ spoke with Håkon Lie. He can't attend. Operasoft won't attend. Will comment on 27 August Draft.
  17. IJ: Propose list of checkpoints that are "sensitive" (affect targetted UAs) and propose variable priorities/rewording for them. (Look at HPR's evaluation sent by Jim Thatcher:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0234.html)
    Status: Done:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html
  18. IJ: Make the dependency on micropayments more visible.
    Status: Not done.
  19. IJ: Include GR's link checkpoint as P3 (configurability). Change priority of 9.6 to P2. Get techniques out of [1].
    Status: Not done.
  20. JG: Create a list of AT people to invite to F2F meeting
    Status: Done. JG: I contacted a number of people. We may get a few extra participants, but there are resource issues.

Agenda 1) Finish discussion on Configuration Checkpoints for Guideline 9

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html

GR: Form control proposal. Ian objected last week to Priority 1. I argued that problem with forms is that serial navigation is not always sufficient - you may encounter a submit button before the form is really over. You want:

GR: Trying to be somewhere between specific and general.

KB: Would it remain a priority one?

GR: Perhaps phrase the checkpoint similarly to that for tables.

GR, IJ: P2 ok.

Action IJ: Respond on the list to this proposal. I think we need something slightly more abstract.

Agenda 2) Review Ian Jacobs proposal on changes in wording to some checkpoints and priorities for conformance if available before the call (15 minutes):

Based on:

IJ: Refer to [2]
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0365.html

(IJ summarizes [2]).

CL: In the case of table navigation, we don't have a problem. We do have problems in that we don't have a visual UI that complies. We can send output to Netscape, or have text-based output.

IJ: Two issues: a) Communication with other software. b) Multiple output mechanisms.

MN: Is it better to follow the "interoperable" route or just staying where we are; it feels slightly less strict.

Action Working Group: Please review this proposal for next week.

MK: I have some concerns about the very device-specific keyboard guideline. It's up front in the guidelines.

IJ: Current disclaimer in 27 August draft:

"Checkpoints in this section do not apply to user agents (e.g., kiosks) that do not natively support keyboard input."

/* Charles and Mark leave the call */

Agenda 3) Review of impact matrix proposal developed by Kitch Barnicle (10 minutes)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0300.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/NOTE-UAGL-impact-matrix-19990903

KB: What will this document be used for?

IJ:
a) Help people understand which groups of users benefit.
b) Ensure that different groups' needs are addressed.
c) Filter out useless checkpoints.

KB: When I was ready to post this, I realized that I hadn't listed mouse as being affected by any checkpoints.

Questions:

  1. Include mice as input technologies?
    IJ: Yes.
  2. Checkpoint: 9.1: Does highlighting imply visual only interfaces?
    IJ: No.
  3. Review of specific checkpoints.

Action JG: Ask Denis Anson to review this list.

4.Issue #71: Titles for ABBR and ACRONYM elements (need a technique)

HB: The technique should address first instances and reuse of the title.

Action HB: Will propose technique to list.

5.Issue #72: What should UAs do to support author-supplied metadata?

  1. Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL. BR> http://www.w3.org/1999/09/smilmetadatasources.html
  2. IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#html-index
  3. JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0348.html
  4. CMN: Propose something about schemas.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0349.html

JG: In WCAG teleconf last week we discussed this. It should suffice to consider metadata known to promote accessibility. Need techniques, therefore, for known metadata sources.

Resolved: Include as techniques.

No Action assigned.

6.Issue #73: Text rendering of client-side image maps

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73

IJ: Has this been done by any existing tools?

CL: HPR does this. We found that you can have alt on MAP.

IJ: Not legal on MAP in HTML 4.0. Another idea: If you find a title attribute, reuse as "title" in the A element.

CL: We look for alt, title, URL piece in that order.

Action CL: Send how HPR does this to the list.

7.Issue #76: How to get to frames when the user turns off the rendering of frames (need a technique)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#76

IJ: The issue was "What does it mean when you turn off frames? How do you get at the frames?" Why would you want to turn of frames?

GR: For speech, e.g., easier to have linear access or NOFRAMES content. Often, browsers don't give access to NOFRAMES unless frames turned off.

IJ: What does "turn frames off" mean? I suggest that this means that you don't get frame contents, only frame alternative content. This is different from non-linear access to to frames (à la Lynx).

IJ: How do frames reduce accessibility?

GR: Screen readers may not let you know that you're in a framed view. Also, frames that are related - one may change (and be spoken) but you're still in the navigation frame (which hasn't changed).

JG: Also, some cognitive issues. May want a simpler looking page.

CL: In HPR, we list links to each frame. We also list NOFRAMES content.

IJ: Are we talking about two-dimension rendering only as an accessibility problem?

GR: A lot of sites use content negotiation to send you to another site that tells you to get a frame-enabled browser. This may happen with Lynx, unless you fake your UA declaration.

CL: Not many sites use NOFRAMES to promote accessibility.

Resolved:

For 4.12 add:

IJ: Ideas for next draft.

Action IJ: Propose a change to 4.12 to the list.

Action JG: Proposed techniques for access to frames

8.Issue #78: Ian Jacobs Review requirements for window spawning


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0212.html

Action JG: Invite Al to meeting next week.

Copyright  ©  1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.