W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for January 12th, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, January 12th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Agenda

Review Open Action Items

  1. IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
  2. IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
  3. IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any)
  4. IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates JG'sand other comments.
  5. IJ: Make clearer in Checkpoint 8.1 that it is "information provided to the user."
  6. IJ: Harmonize language in the spec so that a single expression is used to indicate "provide information to the user". (as opposed to programmatically). Indicate both explicitly when both.
  7. IJ: Indicate that this is a special case of 10.3
  8. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9
  9. JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
  10. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  11. 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, ...)
  12. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  13. 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.
  14. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
    Satus: May already be integrated.
  15. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
  16. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  17. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  18. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  19. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  20. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Announcements

  1. Regular UA telecon scheduled 13 January 2000 at 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000113.html

Discussion

  1. F2F Meeting to process Proposed Recommendation Issues
  2. Candidate Recommendation Preparation
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0049.html
  3. User Agent Responsibilities Document
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/ua-resp-20000109
  4. LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#162
  5. LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere with OS conventions)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#166
  6. LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#175
  7. LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint 8.7 (link information)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#176
  8. WD#179: Priority of 5.8 should be 1
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#179
  9. WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180
  10. LC#126: Proposed change in wording to 5.5 (Provide programmatic notification of changes to content and user interface controls (including selection and focus).
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#126
  11. LC#127: How to verify 5.7 (Provide programmatic exchange of information in a timely manner.)?
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#127
  12. LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs clarification.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Jim Allan
Denis Anson
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham
Dick Brown
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita

Regrets:
David Poehlman
Rich Schwerdtfeger


Action Items

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html
  2. IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html
  3. IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any)
    Status: done
  4. IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates JG'sand other comments.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0048.html
  5. IJ: Make clearer in Checkpoint 8.1 that it is "information provided to the user."
    Status: done
  6. IJ: Harmonize language in the spec so that a single expression is used to indicate "provide information to the user". (as opposed to programmatically). Indicate both explicitly when both.
    Status: done
  7. IJ: Indicate that this is a special case of 10.3
    Status: done
  8. GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
    Satus: Already be integrated or sent to list

Continued Action Items

  1. JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9
  2. JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
  3. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  4. 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, ...)
  5. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  6. 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.
  7. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
  8. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  9. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  10. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  11. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  12. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

New Action Items

  1. IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#162
  2. IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#166
  3. IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#175
  4. IJ: Update document with resolutions for Issue LC#176
  5. GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 13 January 2000 @ 2pm ET for 90 minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0050.html

1) Review of action items

1.IJ: Draft a statement for time of publication, there is no authoritative body that validates claims of conformance
Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html

2.IJ: Repropose the delivery mechanism of conformance statement to allow documentation as an option
Done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0073.html

3.IJ: Follow up on EH's e-mail with some comments from this meeting related to issue LC#138 (will post as new issues if any)
Note done.

4.IJ: Publish a new draft of requirements document that incorporates JG'sand other comments.
Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0048.html

5.IJ: Make clearer in Checkpoint 8.1 that it is "information provided to the user."
Done.

6.IJ: Harmonize language in the spec so that a single expression is used to indicate "provide information to the user". (as opposed to programmatically). Indicate both explicitly when both.
Done.

7.IJ: Indicate that this is a special case of 10.3
Done.

8.JG: Review techniques for Guideline 8.9
Done.

9.JG: Draft a preliminary implementation report for CR consideration
Status: For this afternoon.

10.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
Status: Pending.

11.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, ...)
Status: Pending.

12.DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
Status: Not done.

13.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.
Status: Pending.

14.GR: Write a technique on how to create accessible installation
Status: Pending. Refer to GR's email on installation.

15.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
Status: Not done.

16.MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
Status: Not done.

17.MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
Status: Not done.

18.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
Status: Not done.

19.MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
Status: Not done.

GR: MN not back from Japan yet.

20.WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.
Status: Not done.

2) Announcements

1.Regular UA telecon scheduled 13 January 2000 at 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/wai-ua-telecon-20000113.html

3) F2F Meeting to process Proposed Recommendation Issues

CMN: Based on ATAG, I think it would be worthwhile. I'd also suggest allowing a long time. Book extra time (3-4 weeks) Note: CMN will be in the UA in April.

GR: Other WAI meetings around CSUN.

JG: WCAG may not meet then due to unavailability of chairs. Possibly 27 March.

JG: Who's willing to go to a meeting late March, early April: KB, CMN, DB, DA, GR, IJ, HB, JG.

4) Candidate Recommendation Preparation


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0049.html

HB: Do we get an early read from developers?

IJ: I think coordination is the piece that's missing in our preparation for CR.

KB: The plan is reasonable.

DB: I will coordinate with IE Team.

GR: JG should contact MH at ProdWorks.

GR: I can work with Dolphin.

GR: I can talk to Håkon (since I'm a beta tester). How would we handle a review of a beta-version?

IJ: I will talk to Håkon.

CMN: I'll be talking to RealNetworks people in Seattle.

JG: Other Netscape contacts?

GR: Mozilla?

JR: We can talk to IBM contacts about Mozilla.

Schedule for CR:

IJ: Probably not ready for CR 14 January. Will try for following week.

5) User Agent Responsibilities Document

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/01/ua-resp-20000109

GR: I like the direction it's taking.

JG: Send comments to the list.

6) Issue LC#162: Raise priority of 8.9 (consistency in configs) to P2.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#162

KB: How will developers say that they meet this checkpoint?

JG: How much consistency is required?

IJ: Seems like usability, not accessibility to me.

GR: If the configuration changes significantly, it should be noted in documentation and README.

IJ: Seems like definition of P3 applies.

DA: Can be a bigger problem for users with cognitive difficulties. Rearranging controls makes it very difficult.

KB: Is documentation of changes more important?

IJ: Another factor - difficulty of establishing minimal requirement.

JG: If the change makes using the tool easier, but there is inconsistency, what do you do?

DA/GR: I think it's arguably a P2, but we do have a problem with identifying how you meet it.

CMN: My gut feeling is P2, but not sure.

JA: Same here. It's hard to nail down which direction to go on this.

GR: We need to point developers to the other aspects of the question, notably documentation of changes.

HB: I think P3 is ok.

DB: I think P3 is ok.

KB: This falls to me in the category of general UI design.

Proposed:
- Delete checkpoint 8.9. Move discussion to guideline rationale or principles of accessible design.
- Talk about documentation of changes in G11.

DA: We're trying to say: don't make arbitrary changes. Will that being in prose alone make it clear that this is an accessibility issue?

GR: I'm ok with deleting the checkpoint as long as clearly indicate that documentation important.

DA: I still think it's a significant issue, even if it's in the documentation. It's a burden beyond the documentation.

KB: I agree that it's an important issue.

IJ: Proposed:
- Delete 8.9
- Add a checkpoint in documentation (P3)?

GR: Dolphin offers compatibility modes. This has boosted their sales. Propose adding a technique to configuration checkpoint about compatibility with previous UIs.

Resolved:
- In principles of design, add consistency to list of good design ideas.
- Delete 8.9
- Add a P2 checkpoint in G11 about documenting changes
- Add a technique to config checkpoint about compatibility modes.

Action IJ: Update document with these changes.

7) Issue LC#166: Review priority of 10.5 (default configs that interfere with OS conventions)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#166

IJ: 10.5 in 20 Dec 1999 draft.

DA: If the OS intercepts keystrokes, the UA won't see those inputs.

JG: But that's the same for everyone.

DA: But may be an accessibility if you can do it through mouse but not keyboard.

KB: That's covered by 1.1

GR: Do we have "mobility access keyboard modifiers reserved for the operating system" in the techniques document?

JB: I think in the appendix.

GR: Based on the second sentence it's a P1 item. (e.g., breaking accessibility input methods).

Resolved:
- Change 10.5 to P1 "Avoid default input configurations that interfere with operating system accessibility conventions."
- Move first sentence of note afterwards to techniques for 5.6

Action IJ: Update document with these changes.

8) Issue LC#175: Proposed raise (to P1) of checkpoint 4.18

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#175

IJ: 4.15 in 20 Dec draft.

GR: In the absence of notification, serious accessibility problems. People think that their history mechanism is broken. People often work around by shutting down the browser window.

DB: I think it's inconvenient, but not impossible. P2.

GR: The key point is knowing; not the event itself.

Resolved:
- Leave P2
- Move "SMIL" example in Note to techniques. (Ian to simplify)
- Add cross-ref from 4.15 to 9.1

Action IJ: Update document with these changes

9) Issue LC#176: Proposed change in priority (P3 to P2) for checkpoint 8.7 (link information)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#176

IJ: 8.3 in 20 December draft.

KB: If a UA implements CSS, do they meet this checkpoint?

IJ: If pseudo-elements supported.

DA: If you have a page with lots of links, if you don't have a way to know which you've visited, you have to memorize that and it's difficult to access the data.

GR: There are a lot of superfluous links on pages, notably portal pages.

DA: I think it's a P2.

GR: I think P1, but can live with P2.

JA: I think it's a P2.

HB: I think it's a P2.

DB: I think it's a P2.

Proposed:
- Make 8.3 and 8.7 P2.

DB: I have a reservation about making 8.7 P2. I think developers might not add features because of this.

DA: You can't find a way to present link information that is accessible to everyone.

GR: Refer to section 3.3 of techniques document (link techniques)

KB: Do we have a checkpoint for link presentation?

IJ: Yes: 8.6

KB: If the UA supports CSS, does that suffice? Or does the UA also have to provide a piece of UI for presenting information? Or must the default style sheet display all information?

Consensus:
- The concept is P2.
- Problems with ambiguity of the checkpoint. There may be some implementation problems.
- Configuration less important if UA makes right choice about what information to present.

Action GR: Send screen shot of JFW link view.

Resolved:
- Add (back the old) checkpoint for visited/unvisited links P2. If you don't have access to that information is to follow a link and then return. For complex pages, this becomes an unreasonable burden for people with non-graphical browsers or cognitive disabilities.
- Leave 8.3 and 8.7 as is (removing visited).

Action IJ: Update document with these changes.


Copyright  ©  2000 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.