W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for January 20th, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, January 20th
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Agenda

No review of action items or announcements today

Discussion

  1. WD#185: clarification of "single key" access
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#185
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0151.html
  2. LC#142: Checkpoint 1.5 (output device-independence) needs clarification.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#142
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0146.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0147.html
  3. LC#136: Proposal for checklist delivery (part of conformance)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#136
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0126.html
  4. 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
  5. 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
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0136.html
  6. WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0132.html
  7. 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
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0130.html
  8. 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
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0133.html
  9. WD#177: User control of current focus change and notification.
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#177
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0134.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0147.html
  10. WD#188: Add definition of disability? (to CG)
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#188
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0131.html
  11. 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
    Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0145.html

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:
Denis Anson
Kitch Barnicle
Gregory Rosmaita
David Poehlman
Harvey Bingham
Mickey Quenzer
Dick Brown (joined late, left early)

Regrets:
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Jim Allan
Charles McCathieNevile


Action Items

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Make change for 2.1 note.
  2. IJ: Make change in checkpoint 1.6 with clarification of what is meant by profiles
  3. IJ: Make change wtih clarification of Checkpoint 2.3
  4. IJ: Propose split of checkpoint 10.4 to list
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0151.html
  5. IJ: Propose changes to checkpoint 1.5 to the list.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0146.html

Continued Action Items

  1. CMN: Follow up on this with some learning disability people on graphical configuration issue
  2. DB: Schedule time with IE team for next tuesday when CMN will be in Seattle to review the CR if ready.
  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. IJ: Incoporate Ian's proposed changes to resolve issue WD#185
  2. IJ: Incoporate Ian's resolutions for issue LC#142
  3. IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation is dated. Propose as a note to handle this.
  4. IJ: Edit techniques related to checkpoint 5.4 to reflect the possible way AT can have programmatic access event information
  5. IJ: Add a statement about orientation to checkpoint 5.5 on timely exchange of information
  6. IJ: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3
  7. IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP to checkpoint 4.15
  8. GR: Draft a short minority statement related to merging and priority of checkpoints 10.1 and 10.3

Minutes

NEXT MEETING: 27 January 2000 @2pm ET

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0129.html

RESOLVED: The Working Group agrees to move to Candidate Recommendation based on the resolutions below. The WG agrees to let Jon, Ian, and Judy do scheduling of the CR period. We will inform the WG.

Discussion

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

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

Refer to proposal by Ian
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0151.html

KB: Do we need the first checkpoint of two? What would go under that one?

JG: Things like moving keys closer together, using mnemonic commands, etc.

DA: In the second proposed checkpoint, change "frequently used commands" to those preferred by the user as frequently used.

KB: How will vendors verify satisfaction? You're basically requiring access to most commands since "frequently" is not well-defined.

JG: Refer to unix resources files for how key access specified.

DP: Put key bindings in a profile.

Resolved: Ian's proposal accepted.

Action Ian: Incorporate changes.

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

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

Refer to Ian's proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0146.html

IJ: What does it mean to inform the user of content changes through the user interface? Also, what does it mean to inform the user of user interface changes through the UI?

DA: What about author-initiated (e.g., through scripts). Recall that one of the issues had to so with changes due to scripts that happen in a separate viewport.

GR: Add to list of useful information about a link: following the link will open a new window.

DA: If you just notify the AT, the user doesn't know that he or she should ask for that control.

DB: What kind of changes to content are we talking about?

GR: Content changes that occur without user intervention: scripts, refreshes, etc.

DB: I think a lot of responsibility here belongs to the author. The author should author, for example, so that the user gets a message about the changes.

JG: Even if changes are announced, the user will have to explore the document/user agent to find out what the changes were.

IJ: Consider the example of the MS home page; you tab to links and a popup menu appears.

JG: Note that notification to ATs is required by another checkpoint.

Proposed: Delete 9.1

Proposed: Change priority of 3.9 to P2 and downgrade 9.1 to P3.

MQ: I don't want to rush things to get the document done...

IJ: I think we are rushing it.

GR: 9.1 has, and 3.9 doesn't, alerting the user to changes.

Resolved:
- Delete 9.1
- Raise priority of 3.9 to P2.

HB: "Redundant" is not printer and screen, but different modalities.

Action Ian: Incorporate changes.

3.LC#136: Proposal for checklist delivery (part of conformance)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#136

Refer to HB's comments
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0138.html

Action IJ: Ensure that the link to the conformance explanation is dated. Propose as a note to handle this.

DA: There is precedent for this.

4.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

Resolved:
- No changes to current wording
- Use Ian's comments in techniques:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0094.html

DA: Also, document what event notifications are made available through APIs.

Action Ian: Edit techniques.

5.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

Refer to JG's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0136.html

Resolved:
- No change, discuss in techniques (which need work)
- Add statement about synchronization between user actions with the AT and what's going on in the general purpose UA. If you are forced to way an extra 20 seconds, totally disorienting.

Action Ian: Add a statement about orientation.

6.WD#180: 10.8 should be priority 2

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#180

JG: Lack of specificity (minimal requirement) concerns me and I don't want to raise the priority in that case.

Resolved:
- Leave checkpoint 10.8 a P3 until we have a more specific proposal.

7.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

Resolved:
- This is not an issue to hold up CR.
- This work is being carried out in the EO WG.

8.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

Refer to JG's proposal.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0093.html

JG: If you can't change the input config, the documentation suffices. Also, the API requirement is covered by 5.2 in conjunction with the 10.1 and 10.2 (actually, 10.3) requirement to make info to the user through the user interface.

Resolved: Remove "and through an API" from 10.1 and 10.3.

Action Ian: Edit the checkpoints accordingly.

9.WD#177: User control of current focus change and notification.

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#177

Refer to Ian's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0147.html

Requirements:
- Content + UI

IJ: Can we be more specific about "interference"?

GR: My main concern is focus.

DP: I want "flag me" but "don't require action"

IJ: Is it only a focus issue? Spawned windows are annoying and may cause problems for users with cognitive disabilities. Might be a problem for motor disabilities moving windows out of the way.

GR: You need an alert mechanism in order to know that a new window has appeared.

Resolved:
- Use old 4.15 but add prompts, messages, other windows.
- Add a checkpoint to ensure user control of focus changes. P2.

DP: Move some of my 1.5 techniques to new checkpoints.

Action IJ: Make changes and add techniques from GR and DP.

10.WD#188: Add definition of disability? (to CG)

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#188

JG: This was sent to the WAI CG and copied to all the WGs. The UA WG on its own is not required to add a definition. This should be added later if the CG creates a definition or document.

Resolved: No change in the Guidelines.

11.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

Refer to JG proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0145.html

JG: Last call reviewers:
Liam Quinn : Leave as is with current priorities.
Jon Gardner: Merge, leave as P2
Eric Hansen: IJ thinks he said merge; don't recall priority.
Martin Duerst: Author specified at least as important as user specified.

GR: I object to the proposal. Keyboard is vital to access today. I've proposed a number of techniques.

How many people agree: DA, JG, DP, HB, KB

How many people object: GR, IJ, MQ

Resolved:
- JG's proposal is accepted.
- Objection from IJ, GR, MQ will be documented and delivered with the CR.

GR: The WAI PF is dealing with this issue.

Action GR: Draft a short minority statement.

Proposal to go to Candidate Recommendation

Unanimous vote to go to Candidate Recommendation status


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.