W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for December 15th, 1999


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, December 15th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: MIT Bridge (+1) 617-258-7910 (wrong number, actual number is (617) 252-7000)


Agenda

Review Open Action Items

  1. IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
  2. IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of content even if it passes content off for rendering.
  3. IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental positioning control in multi-media
  4. IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
  5. IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list.
  6. IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add functional limitation
  7. IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
  8. IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
  9. IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques document
  10. IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list
  11. IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content
  12. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
  13. JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December
  14. JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin
  15. JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to multi-media
  16. JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG
  17. JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the CG for consideration in WAI definitions
  18. DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is important for users with impairments.
  19. DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
  20. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  21. DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use in Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry, show sounds, ...)
  22. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  23. DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
  24. EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to the list.
  25. JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list.
  26. GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions
  27. GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
  28. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
  29. KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending
  30. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  31. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  32. MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list
  33. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  34. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Announcements

  1. Web Content is rechartering
  2. New telecon day and time for working group start on 6 January 2000
    Thursdays, 2-3:30pm (EST, USA), on Longfellow Bridge (+1-617-252-1038)

Discussion

  1. Candidate Recommendation Stage
    Are we obligated?
    Showing implementations to director and in techniques document?
  2. LC#137: Use of terms for disabilities, impairment
  3. LC#138: "Synchronized equivalent" v. "Continuous Equivalent"/ Proposed split of 2.5
  4. LC#133: Priority of 10.1 compared to 10.3
  5. LC#146: Review priorities of 4.16, 5.2, 8.3, 8.5, 10.3, 10.6
  6. LC#155: Propose change of priorities for checkpoints 5.3 (r/w access) and 10.3 (single key)
  7. LC#156: Propose change in priority of 5.6 (P1 -> P2)
  8. LC#158: Propose priority change (1 to 2) for checkpoint 4.1 (control of font family)
  9. LC#159: Propose raise priority of 4.13 to Priority 1
  10. LC#161: Raise priority of 8.8 to P2 (highlighting and identifying selection/focus)
  11. LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2.
  12. LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere with OS conventions)
  13. LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18
  14. LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint 8.7 (link information
  15. Other issues on the issues list

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan/Ian Jacobs

Present:
Jim Allan
Gregory J. Rosmaita (Joined at 12:15)
Mickey Quenzer
Harvey Bingham (Joined at 12:15)
Dick Brown
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:
Charles McCathieNevile


Action Items

Completed Action Items

  1. JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0666.html
  2. JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin
    See announcements section
  3. JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG
    Status: Done
  4. JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the CG for consideration in WAI definitions
    Status: Done
  5. JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to multi-media
    Status: Done
  6. JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0679.html

Continued Action Items

  1. IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2
  2. IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of content even if it passes content off for rendering.
  3. IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental positioning control in multi-media
  4. IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
  5. IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list.
  6. IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add functional limitation
  7. IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1
  8. IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
  9. IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques document
  10. IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list
  11. IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content
  12. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9
  13. DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is important for users with impairments.
  14. DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5
  15. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  16. DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use in Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry, show sounds, ...)
  17. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  18. DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
  19. EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to the list.
  20. GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions
  21. GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.
  22. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
  23. KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending
  24. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  25. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  26. MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list
  27. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  28. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

New Action Items

  1. JG: Contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson, Ian send proposal related to multi-media terminology to AU and GL with history and proposal to reconcile any current or potential differences between documents.
  2. IJ: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark, Mark Novak (cc the list).
  3. JG: I will request the bridge for 5 and 12 January at 12:00 EST for extra conference calls to clear the issues list by early January

Minutes

Chair note: The wrong telephone number was provided by the chair in the announcement for the telecon and 6 members of the group called into the announced phone number. Two people eventually called the number the group was scheduled to be on. The chair apologizes to the working group for providing the wrong information.

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0695.html

NOTE: Jon will schedule extra teleconference scheduled for 5 January at 12pm ET

NOTE: Starting 6 January, standard teleconference times will be at 2:00-3:30 pm ET. with a new number (617) 252-1038

/* Jim Allan scribe */

>Review Open Action Items

1.IJ: Review techniques for topic 3.2

2.IJ: Add clarifying Note to rationale that UAs can turn off control of content even if it passes content off for rendering.

3.IJ: Send proposal to list related to checkpoint for incremental positioning control in multi-media

4.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance

5.IJ: Refer to ATAG definition of "applicability" and propose to list.

6.IJ: In glossary, add WHO definition of impairment, disability, and add functional limitation

7.IJ: Repropose simpler Checkpoint for 1.1

8.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option

9.IJ: Add access to the "class" attribute of an element to techniques document

10.IJ: Propose new checkpoint by merging 7.3 and 7.7 to the list

11.IJ: Propose a technique for using XSL to transform content

12.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.3 to 8.9

13.JG/IJ: Publish F2F agenda on 8 December - done

14.JG: Send request for change in telecon time to W3C admin -done

15.JG: Request UA/GL/UA join meeting related to terminology related to multi-media

16.JG: Resend the conformance issue validation to the WAI CG -done

17.JG: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the CG for consideration in WAI definitions - done

18.DA: Propose rational to explain why deceleration of multi-media is important for users with impairments.

19.DB: Review techniques for Guideline 5 - his are in, waiting on IE Team-pending

20.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints. -pending

21.DB: Find out how developers find out which appropriate triggers to use in Windows for using built-in accessibility features (i.e. sound sentry, show sounds, ...). -pending

22.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages

23.DP: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.

24.EH: Refine proposal on the meaning of "synchornized alternatives" to the list.

25.JA: Propose a revised Checkpopint 3.9 and 3.10 to the list. -done

26.GR: Take WHO definitions of disability, impairment and functional to the ATAG and GL WGs for consideration in their definitions

27.GR: Send to the list techniques for how to use and control focus to not have new windows cause problems for usability. In particular, how this will work with ATs.

28.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation

29.KB: Update impact matrix based on 5 November draft. Pending

30.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)

31.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)

32.MK: Write some comments on synchronization in multi-media to the list

33.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167 -pending

34.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Announcements

1.Web Content is rechartering - announced - 2 stage process, 1.1 version, then work on major revision

2.New telecon day and time for working group start on 6 January 2000 Thursdays, 2-3:30pm (EST, USA), on Longfellow Bridge (+1-617-252-1038)

Discussion

1.Candidate Recommendation Stage

Are we obligated?
Showing implementations to director and in techniques document?

jg: review-new stage of recommendation. Proposed Rec-Candidate (implementation period-demonstrate that guidelines are implementable)-Full Rec. Our obligation-that our technical guidelines are usable by vendors, show an example of each checkpoint in a browser or demonstration project. Where no clear implementation get a vendor to make an example.

rs:will it push out timeline?

jg: should not puch out timeline. rs would be a good resource for DOM demonstration, not asking for commitment. need examples of guideline 5....other comments

rs: want to become more involved in DOM working group

jg: look through techniques, and fill in blanks

mq: send information to reviewers about new process

jg: reviews might not know about new process

mq: feedback about status of document

LC#137: Use of terms for disabilities, impairment -- add in agenda

jg: Denis Anson brought WHO def to f2f. jg brought to coordination group...CG those defs are medical model, contemporary-more positive, inclusive. Many disability groups do not like WHO def. CG recommends using standing def. in the current document. Comments....

mq: so we don't have to change anything. its all personal preference

jg: good for keeping in harmony with other documents, and Judy Brewer would balk. Issue closed. no decension in group.

LC#138: "Synchronized equivalent" v. "Continuous Equivalent"/ Proposed split of 2.5 add in agenda

jg: coordinate with AU - not addressed in their document. should not have dependencies. may have a problem with web content. WCGL is not chartered hard to get together. send proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal. Action item for Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson.

Action JG: Contact Madelaine Rothberg, Marjia, Eric Hanson, Ian .send proposal to AU and GL with history and proposal.

2.LC#133: Priority of 10.1 compared to 10.3

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#133

rs: on 10-1 provide input to api

jg: Ian has action on API issue. lets focus on priority

jg: allowing user to change input bindings

mq: changing 10-1 priority

jg: priority ok

rs: priority ok

db: priorty ok

Resolved leave priorites as is

3.LC#146: Review priorities of 4.16, 5.2, 8.3, 8.5, 10.3, 10.6

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#146

review 4.16

ja: how does this apply to gui browsers

jg: poll group all ok with P2

Resolved: 4.16 P2

Resolved 5.2 revised 2 times

/* Ian Joins */

/* Ian becomes the scribe */

For checkpoint 8.3:

* Some agreement that the outline view is a technique for navigation.

Resolved:
a) 8.5 in 6 December draft now Priority 3.
b) Clarify that the view need not be active. Clarify that this is a technique for 7.7

For checkpoint 8.3 in 6 December draft:

RS: A lot of non-disabled users don't have access to this information.

IJ: Is it a lot extra effort to follow the link and then hit back?

RS, DB: This is a usability issue.

JG: What are the implications to the UAs? Exposing the history list to the AT?

MQ: I find visited links to be useless. The information I get sometimes is unreliable.

DB: I don't if the history list is available programmatically. I suspect it is.

RS: I think so too.

Resolved: Priority 3

For checkpoint 10.3 in 6 December draft:

Resolved: Priority 2 (same)

For checkpoint 10.6 in 6 December draft:

DB: Do OS profiles count?

IJ: Yes.

RS: What about hand-held devices?

Resolved: Leave as P2 but clarify in the checkpoint text that this is for operating systems where it's possible to identify oneself as a specific user.

4.LC#155: Propose change of priorities for checkpoints 5.3 (r/w access) and 10.3 (single key)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#155

For 5.3, resolved per ftf decisions.

/* Gregory joined */

/* Harvey joined */

/* DB leaves */

For 10.3

IJ: Is it P1 to be able to trigger some functionalities (non-configurable) with a single key?

RS: Does this include closing the application?

JG: That's the problem, you don't know what people want.

RS: Single key could be hit multiple times. But this gets messy.

GR: Proposed useful baseline for deciding what's necessary for single-key access: there are many single actions that you find on a menu bar. Perhaps start by saying "For all single actions enabled by the UI".

IJ: In Word, for example, you can put buttons for each functionality on the tool bar.

RS: You probably want to exclude author-defined access keys.

GR: There's a difference between serial single-key strokes and modifier keys (two at once).

JG: Doesn't seem to me to be impossible to active functionalities without single key.

IJ: What does "single key" mean:
a) Not two keys at once?
b) Single action?

RS: Real killer is requiring the user to hit several keys simultaneously.

Resolved:
* Move first two sentences from 1.4 to note for 10.7
* Add a note about single key access to 10.7
* Add a cross-reference from 1.4 to 10.7

Action Ian: Write Bryan Campbell/Håkon Lie for clarification and David Clark, Mark Novak (cc the list).

Extra Telecon to Process Issues

Action JG: I will request the bridge for 5 and 12 January at 12:00 EST for extra conference calls to clear the issues list by early January.


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.