W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for October 6th, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, October 6th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000

Agenda

Review Open Action Items

  1. JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames
  2. JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines.
  3. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  4. GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
  5. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines
  6. MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note.
  7. IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution of the conformance issues related to assistive technology

Announcements

  1. No telecon on 13 October 1999.
  2. Send agenda items to UA face-to-face.
  3. DOM 2 in last call until 8 October.

Discussion

  1. Issue #96: Issues related to Checkpoint 2.1: Mapping of user agent functions to control mechanisms and memory demands related to sequential/direct access to functionalities
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#96
  2. Issue #89: Proposed changes in conformance based on interoperable UA and non-interoperable UA
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#89
  3. Issue #78: Review requirements for window spawning
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#78
  4. Issue #85: Priority of checkpoint on language support
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#85
  5. Issue #86: Should Guideline about support for W3C technologies be broadened or narrowed?
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues -linear.html#86
  6. Issue #87: Proposed wording change about user-control of highlight rendering
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#87
  7. Issue #88: Proposed wording change for checkpoint on access to selected content.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#88
  8. Issue #91: Proposed reformulation of frames checkpoint
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#91
  9. Issue #92: Proposed checkpoint about form orientation
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#92
  10. Issue #93: Proposed modification to definition of "applicable checkpoint"
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#93
  11. Issue #94: Reenforcing the the use of standard keyboard APIs in guideline 2
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#94
  12. Issue #95: Proposed checkpoint: Choose from among style sheets
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#95

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
David Poehlman
Mark Novak
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
Al Gilman
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Charles McCathieNevile
Daniel Dardailler

Regrets:
Gregory J. Rosmaita

Action Items

Completed Action Items

  1. JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0049.html
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0056.html
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0059.html
  2. IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution of the conformance issues related to assistive technology
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0447.html

Continued Action Items

  1. JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines
    Status: Contact pwWebSpeak person to finish the review
  2. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  3. GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
  4. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines
  5. MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note.

New Action Items

  1. JG: Contact MR about SMIL techniques
  2. JG: Contact Lakespur Roca related to posting for review of keyboard support
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html
  3. JG: Review RS comments on current working draft and update the issue list
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0063.html
  4. IJ: Contact Microsoft about participation at F2F meeting in Redmond
  5. IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be changed related to checkpoint 2.1 issues
  6. IJ: Split Checkpoint 1.1 into support device indepdence and use standard APIs. Clarify that not all APIs required. Results dependent on Rich proposal.
  7. IJ: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table summary information (checkpoint 9.9 and 9.10)
  8. IJ Change title of Guideline 7 to reflect more than just w3c technologies accessibility
  9. IJ: Add checkpoint 6.6 to guidelines 7
  10. RS: Propose rewording of Checkpoint 1.1

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/wai-ua-telecon-19991006.html#agenda

1) Review of action items:

  1. JG: Run pwWebSpeak through the guidelines.
    Status: Harvey suggested someone at pwWebSpeak who could do the review
  2. JG: Propose techniques for rendering of frames
    Status: Done.
  3. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
    Status: no information
  4. GR: Write a proposal to address issues about spawned windows.
    Status: no information
  5. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines
    Status: Will be done for face-to-face.
  6. MR: Working on SMIL techniques in addition to SMIL access note.
    Action JG: Will contact Madeleine.
  7. IJ and JG: Send a proposal to the ua list for resolution of the conformance issues related to assistive technology Status: Done.

2) Announcements:

  1. 1.No telecon on 13 October 1999
  2. 2.Send agenda items to UA face-to-face.
  3. 3.DOM 2 in last call until 8 October.

3) Agenda items for face-to-face?

(No input from those present).

DP: Will Netscape be at the meeting?

IJ: I've written Mozilla but haven't gotten a reply.

Action JG: I will invite Lake Rocca to WG and face-to-face.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999OctDec/0015.html

4) Issue #96: Issues related to Checkpoint 2.1: Mapping of user agent functions to control mechanisms and memory demands related to sequential/direct access to functionalities.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#96

IJ: Any proposals?

AG: The way I understand Marja's issue that is not currently covered: it's possible for discrete access strategies to fail because they require too many steps. There are two separate issues in terms of the logic:
a) Visual/Memory
b) Multistep/Single step

People can fail to use key access to print because the number of keystrokes becomes a burden.

IJ: 5 October version has requirement of single key access for frequently used functionalities.

JG: Summarizing
a) How can we encapsulate demands on memory in a checkpoint?
b) Orientation issue: keyboard commands must be documented.

Action IJ: Contact Marja about writing a proposal for what should be changed.

5) Additional checkpoint suggestions:

RS: a) Section 6 on observe standards. There's no checkpoint that addresses loading Java applets into the JVM. Proposed in [2]:

6.7 Support plug-in and virtual machine system conventions for loading and running an assistive technology. For example, the Sun Java virtual machine supports loading and running of assistive technologies. (priority 1)

Action JG: Add this to issues list.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0063.html

6) Issue #89: Proposed changes in conformance based on interoperable UA and non-interoperable UA

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#89

PROPOSAL 1)

IJ: I proposed splitting 1.1. I think that two important concepts should be separated.

No objections to the split.

IJ: Also related: Does a tool have to support ALL OS input device APIs?

Resolved: Clarify 1.1 so that UAs don't have to support all input device APIs available on an OS. If you support a type of API, support the system standard API.

MN: Note that MS Platform requires support for both mouse and keyboard APIs. The UAGL only requires keyboard API support. Thus, in this case, the UAGL is less strict than the MS platform guidelines.

RS: Perhaps a checkpoint that says to use "most common API" for the system (which might be pen input, for example).

JG: Can we put this somewhere in Guideline 1?

RS: Can we include examples?

Action Rich: Draft a proposal for a checkpoint about using "common" input/output device APIs for the given system.

Action Ian: Split 1.1, clarify that not all APIs required. Results dependent on Rich proposal.

PROPOSAL 2)

Ensure that the user has access to the content of an element selected by the user.

IJ: I changed "content" to "structure".

JG: I prefer "content"

HB: I think "structure" is also important.

IJ: Do 3.1, 9.2, and 8.3 count?

RS: Ensure that the user has access to the content of an element selected by the user programmatically, through a dependent user agent, or through voice input.

IJ: So just shorten to "Ensure that the user has access to the selected content."

RS: So just remove "for dependent user agents"

Resolved: "Ensure that the user has access to selected content." Change Note to mention programmatic access, structure, and that cell content can spoken, etc.

PROPOSAL 3) Checkpoint 3.3. This checkpoint should not be for dependent user agents only. Refer to issue 84.

Resolved: For all user agents.

PROPOSAL 4) Checkpoint 8.3. Proposed for all user agents and adding a Note.

IJ: Any reason to single out tables?

CMN: I don't think there's any reason. Tables are two-dimensional, so they pose an additional problem of access. The critical part is access to relevant information, which includes table structure.

KB: If there's a checkpoint for table navigation, then we can drop this.

DP: We definitely need to emphasize table navigation. There are probably other multi-dimensional elements and we could regroup them. I don't want to bury a table navigation checkpoint.

IJ: What should the priority be?

Resolved: Leave 8.3. Make for all user agents. Add Note proposed by Ian.

PROPOSAL 5) Checkpoint 9.2. The current text:

Provide the user with information about the number of viewports.

IJ: What's the goal here? Is it actually the number of viewports?

IJ: Change to "Provide a list of open viewports (including frames)."?

IJ: "Provide information about viewport structure and focus." E.g., the structure of a frameset.

Resolve: Delete based on new 9.3

PROPOSAL 6) Checkpoint 9.3

Proposed: Allow the user to view a document outline built from its structural elements (e.g., from header and list elements).

IJ: For all user agents. Does "page source" count?

Consensus: Page source doesn't suffice.

Resolved: Make 9.3 for all user agents. Mention frames explicitly.

PROPOSAL 7)

Proposal: Make Guideline 7 for all open standards.

No objections to moving 6.6 to Guideline 7.

Action Ian:
1) Guideline 7 more than just about w3c technologies
2) Add checkpoint 6.6

ISSUE) What do we do about 9.9 and 9.10 (cell headers and table dimensions)?

JG: I'd like to keep 9.9.

DP: I'd like to keep 9.10.

Action Ian: Propose a checkpoint like the ones for form about table summary information.

Adjourned

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.