W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for January 19th, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, January 19th
Time: 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Agenda

Review Open 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. IJ: Repropose checkpoint 1.5
  6. IJ: Add info related to searching for non-rendered information (or searches using voice output user agents) to appendix
  7. IJ: Adopt changes in wording for Checkpoint 1.1
  8. JG: Find a host/date for next FTF meeting
  9. JG: Take issue of mobile devices/guidelines in next WAI CG meeting.
  10. CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on graphical configuration issue
  11. DA: Follow up with Alan Cantor on what is the critical component(s) for graphical configuration (done by email during meeting)
  12. DB: Send proposal for single key access wording for checkpoint 10.3
  13. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
  14. 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, ...)
  15. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
  16. 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.
  17. GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list
  18. GR: Remind DP of this action to proposed new text for checkpoint 1.5
  19. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
  20. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  21. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  22. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  23. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  24. MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.
  25. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Announcements

Discussion

  1. Candidate Recommendation planning update
  2. Face to face planning update
  3. Updated working draft of the guidelines and techniques published on 15 January
  4. WD#185: clarification of "single key" access
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#185
  5. LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs clarification.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142
  6. LC#136: Proposal for checklist delivery (part of conformance)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#136
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180
  10. WD#181: Request for a wrapper note designed for AT developers explaining relation to guidelines
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#181
  11. WD#178: In 10.1 and 10.2 what does communicate through an API mean
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#178
  12. WD#177: User control of current focus change and notification.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#177
  13. WD#186: Proposed removal of Note in 2.1
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#186
  14. WD#187: Proposed change in wording to 1.6 (profiles)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#187
  15. WD#188: Add definition of disability? (to CG)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#188
  16. WD#189: Proposed change to checkpoint 2.3 (missing alt info)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#189
  17. LC#112: Split checkpoint 10.1 into two separate checkpoints for author and user agent input functionalities and mark as an issue during last call
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#112

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
David Poehlman
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Dick Brown
Kitch Barnicle
Harvey Bingham

Regrets:
Denis Anson
Madeleine Rothberg
Charles McCathieNevile
Jim Allan


Action Items

Completed 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. IJ: Add info related to searching for non-rendered information (or searches using voice output user agents) to appendix
  6. IJ: Adopt changes in wording for Checkpoint 1.1
  7. JG: Find a host/date for next FTF meeting
  8. JG: Take issue of mobile devices/guidelines in next WAI CG meeting.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0089.html
  9. DA: Follow up with Alan Cantor on what is the critical component(s) for graphical configuration (done by email during meeting)
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0091.html
  10. DB: Send proposal for single key access wording for checkpoint 10.3
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0099.html
  11. DP: Propose new Checkpoint 1.5 for access to system messages
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0122.html
  12. GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0123.html
  13. GR: Remind DP of this action to proposed new text for checkpoint 1.5
  14. WC: Take form submission to GL WG to discuss issues related to inadvertent submission.

Continued Action Items

  1. IJ: Repropose checkpoint 1.5
  2. CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on graphical configuration issue
  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. 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.
  6. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
  7. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  8. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  9. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  10. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
  11. MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.

New Action Items

  1. DB: Schedule time with IE team for next tuesday when CMN will be in Seattle to review the CR if ready.
  2. IJ: Make change for 2.1 note.
  3. IJ: Make change in checkpoint 1.6 with clarification of what is meant by profiles
  4. IJ: Make change wtih clarification of Checkpoint 2.3
  5. IJ: Propose split of checkpoint 10.4 to list
  6. IJ: Propose changes to checkpoint 1.5 to the list.

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 20 January 2000 @2pm ET

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0119.html

1) Review of action items

1.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#162
Done.

2.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#166
Done.

3.IJ: Update document with resolutions for issue LC#175
Done.

4.IJ: Update document with resolutions for Issue LC#176
Done.

5.IJ: Repropose checkpoint 1.5
Not done.

6.IJ: Add info related to searching for non-rendered information (or searches using voice output user agents) to appendix
Need to verify.

7.IJ: Adopt changes in wording for Checkpoint 1.1
Not done.

8.JG: Find a host/date for next FTF meeting
See below.

9.JG: Take issue of mobile devices/guidelines in next WAI CG meeting.
Done.

10.CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on graphical configuration issue
No info.

11.DA: Follow up with Alan Cantor on what is the critical component(s) for graphical configuration (done by email during meeting)
Done.

12.DB: Send proposal for single key access wording for checkpoint 10.3
done.

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

14.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.

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

16.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.
Pending. Will ask RS at PF face-to-face.

17.GR: Send screen shot of JFW link list to the list
Done.

18.GR: Remind DP of this action to proposed new text for checkpoint 1.5
Done.

19.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
No info.

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

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

22.MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
pending

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

24.MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.
pending.

No info.

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

2) Announcements

Regular UA telecon scheduled 20 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-20000120.html

3) Discussion

1.Candidate Recommendation planning update

IJ: Once we get the issues resolved (tomorrow), the WG needs to say "We want to go to CR".
- Aim for 24th for CR.
- Aim to resolve all issues (and document objections) by tomorrow.
- Update materials for Friday.

Action DB: Schedule time with IE team for next tuesday when CMN will be in Seattle to review the CR if ready.

KB: What if all developers say "We don't expect to satisfy these 5 or they shouldn't be on the list?"

IJ: Valuable information that should be considered by the WG.

2.Face to face planning update

JG: We have an invitation from RFBD (Princeton, NJ). PWWorks may be "co-host".

No objections to general location (east coast).

3.Updated working draft of the guidelines and techniques published on 15 January

IJ:
- new short names
- some new text in there awaiting WG approval.

13.WD#186: Proposed removal of Note in 2.1

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#186

HB: I think "concurrent" is better than "simultaneous".

Resolved: Approved.

Action IJ: Make change for 2.1 note.

14.WD#187: Proposed change in wording to 1.6 (profiles)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#187

IJ: Note the change - no longer required only on systems with multiple users.

HB: Reword to be "through a profile".

Resolved: Approved.

Action IJ: Make change with clarification.

16.WD#189: Proposed change to checkpoint 2.3 (missing alt info)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#189

KB: Required by "whom"?

IJ: The markup language definition, not WCAG.

Resolved: Approved.

Action IJ: Make change wtih clarification.

4.WD#185: clarification of "single key" access

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#185

Refer to DB's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0099.html

DB: Sticky keys on means that you accomplish something with single keys in sequence.

JB: I think we want to highlight that you want really single key, direct access (e.g., "F4" and that's it). I think people want to highlight the ability to do this, but not make it an absolute requirement.

DB: I don't think you'll get developers to add single-key when sticky keys and sequences exist.

DP: I think the objective is to perform a single action with a single key.

KB: In IE, you can get to most of the functions, but can be very inefficient for some users. The goal (according to Bryan Campbell) is to let users configure a small number of single key bindings for important actions. Sequences ok for the rest.

DB: I think that this is less important than other accessibility features. I can, with sticky keys today, do some things faster than some users with a mouse.

JG: Refer to Alan Cantor's email about keyboard efficiency as well.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0098.html

Consensus: We don't expect all functionalities to be bound to single keys at the same time.

IJ: Also, I think there are some contexts where you are inherently doing N things (e.g., the print control panel). I only mean "things that only require one step".

DP: Save input configurations in the user's profile.

JG: Note that this is possible in Word. We're asking for the functionality in user agents.

GR: Note that Opera is a user agent that recognizes different modes, so that in form edit mode, single key strokes aren't available to the user.

IJ: noted - there may be modes in which some single keys are not available (e.g., "p" should not be available in editing mode).

Proposed:
- Split 10.4 into two. Make single-key a special case of old 10.4.

Action Ian: Propose split to list. Priority 2 for new checkpoint.

Incorporate these pieces:
- Not all at once
- Some keys not available at certain times.
- Intended for one-step operations.

5.LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs clarification.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142

Refer to proposal from DP:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0122.html

DP: Goal of not having my input be sent to the wrong window.

GR: I would like to talk to RS face-to-face about some of the focus issues.

JG: I have problems with "all output device APIs". Which ones? The printer?

JG: I think the goal is that messages are rendered through system controls.

IJ: I think the actual requirement is device-independent access to information. System controls are the best way to do this since ATs can monitor them.

IJ: I think 1.5 may be covered by 5.2, 9.1, and 5.6. However, 1.5 is P1.

JG: Problem of support for beeps: is morse code necessary?

DP: Refer to 9 December minutes as well.

Proposed:
- Modify 9.1 to include controls
- Add checkpoint to G4 to includes messages. In techniques talk about different priorities of messages.
- Modify 1.5 about mode-independence of messages. (Don't just use sound or animations).

Action IJ: Propose changes to the list.


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.