W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for Feburary 10th, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, Feburary 10th
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038


Agenda

Review Open Action Items

Announcements

  1. Special Telecon on the use of DOM by AT developers to access WWW content, on Thursday, 17 February
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000217.html
  2. Extra Telecons scheduled to resolve Candidate Recommendation issues, on Wednesday, 23 February and Wednesday, 1 March (if needed)
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000223.html
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/03/wai-ua-telecon-20000301.html
  3. United States Congressional hearings: Americans with Disabilities Act and the Internet
    http://www.house.gov/judiciary/na020800.htm

Discussion

  1. FTF meeting update
  2. Special telecon with Assistive Technology developers on uses of DOM to improve accessibility of AT
  3. Should there be reviews of techniques before they are added to the techniques document
  4. CR#190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which you can do through the UI."
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#190
  5. CR#191: Does a pause function satisfy checkpoint 2.2? CR
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#191
  6. CR#192: Does hiding video satisfy checkpoint 3.3
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#192
  7. CR#193: In the case of animations, does checkpoint 4.5 mean a requirement to step through or slow the speed as well as being able to turn it off?
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#193
  8. CR#194: In a timed presentation does checkpoint 7.2 mean return to the time that the user was at in a previous MM rendering
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#194
  9. CR#195: Problems understanding checkpoint 1.5
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#195
  10. CR#196: It is unclear to developers how they know they conform to Checkpoint 6.2: Conform to W3C specifications when they are appropriate
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#196
  11. CR#197: Not clear with the scope of user preferences is in Checkpoint 10.7
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#197
  12. CR#198: How much information needs to be provided to satisfy Checkpoint 8.4
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#198
  13. CR#199: Poor wording of checkpoint 10.8, it is not clear what the requirement is to improve accessibility
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#199
  14. CR#200: Checkpoint 5.5, developers not unclear on how they know they have satisfied this checkpoint
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#200

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Jim Allan

Present:
Denis Anson
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Dick Brown
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer

Regrets:
Ian Jacobs
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Harvey Bingham
Charles McCathieNevile


Action Items

Open Action Items

  1. IJ: For 4.10 add the CSS2 property. And cross reference 4.7 techniques
  2. IJ: For 4.11 add the CSS2 property.
  3. IJ: XWindows techniques for 5.3
  4. IJ: DOM2 techniques for 5.3 (if any)
  5. IJ: For 6.2 add a link to the TR page. Add links to conformance sections in specs. Also to validation services.
  6. IJ: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3
  7. IJ: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order.
  8. IJ: For 6.2, propose some wording to address the "when available" issue.
  9. JG: for 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines.
  10. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints.
    Status: notes have been lost and are being reconstructed
  11. 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.
  12. MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this?
  13. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
  14. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  15. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)
  16. MR: Run a multimedia player through the guidelines for January.
  17. MQ: Ask Mark Hakkinen about telephone browsers and the guidelines.
  18. RS: Take these issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian

New Action Items

  1. JG: message Mark H. of productivity works about survey and participation on DOM conference call.
  2. JG: invite PF Al, Daniel, CMN and Mark Novak to next meeting Feb 23
  3. JG: Check with Ian about adding reference in 4.5 to 4.6 in regard to stepping throught animation/video/audio.
  4. GR: Help CMN be available for the call
  5. DA: Rewrite technique for 2.2 (see minutes)
  6. JA: Rewrite techniques for 3.3 (see minutes)

Completed Action Items

  1. JG: Send request for times to adminreq.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0272.html
  2. RS: Send some code to show how to listen to content changes
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0287.html
  3. JA: Submit techniques for 4.14
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0297.html
  4. JA: For 4.8 check with Geoff Freed and Madeleine Rothberg, and copy response to Marja any results. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0209.html
  5. MQ: Ask Mark about meaning of comment raised in Issue #167
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0293.html
  6. DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent info is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0296.html

Minutes

Review of Open Action Items

Announcements

1.Special Telecon on the use of DOM by AT developers to access WWW content, on Thursday, 17 February

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000217.html

see UA site for additional information, and DOM survey results. What supports to AT vendors require. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/ want to address concerns, requirements, what can this group do to help.

JG: not focus on DOM 3 in this meeting. address at a different time.

mq: review of dom 3 might be useful for future reference.

2.Extra Telecons scheduled to resolve Candidate Recommendation issues, on Wednesday, 23 February and Wednesday, 1 March (if needed)


http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/02/wai-ua-telecon-20000223.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/03/wai-ua-telecon-20000301.html

also regularly scheduled telecons. publish recommendation on March 8.

3. Congressional hearing info see http://www.w3.org/wai/ua Feb 10 meeting

dp: judy did a wonderful job discussing implications and demonstrating. Misunderstanding of what quick tips cards are for (is that all there is to do).

Action JG: message Mark H. of productivity works about survey and participation on DOM conference call.

Discussion

1.FTF meeting update April 10-11 or 17-18

Judy still in negotiations with Host.

jg: must be at proposed rec by Mar 10, must announce 8 weeks ahead of time. may have telephone call in.

2.Special telecon with Assistive Technology developers on uses of DOM to improve accessibility of AT

3.Should there be reviews of techniques before they are added to the techniques document

jg: objected to technique (5.5), techniques was not discussed in group and added new directions and concerns about checkpoints. Proposal, no formal method of review. submit technique to list, if no objections, then Ian edits into tech document, if objections then add to issue list. Developers are now asked to look a document and implement them, must have technically sound techniques, don't want to confuse issue. must have clear understanding of what we are trying to communicate.

da: any technique under a cp must relate to technique

jg: must be clear so developer doesn't ask "what are you asking for??"

jg: reviews proposal again...

jg: techniques is published as a note. can be updated at any time.

gr: techniques must be usable and understandable.

gr: authoring tool group, rechartering as interest group to update techniques, work with tool makers. working groups must evolve how they work with techniques documents to keep up with changes.

jg: current tech have recommendation that need updating. should publish new tech within 6 months

4.#190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which you can do through the UI."

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#190

jg: read only access to dom, write access to some attributes, current requirement would be difficult for Opera, want more specifics. JG sent proposal to list. some comments. may need PGWG involvement.

current checkpoint:

5.1 Provide programmatic read and write access to content by conforming to W3C Document Object Model (DOM) specifications and exporting interfaces defined by those specifications. [Priority 1]

JG proposed 5 seperate specific checkpoints

5.1 Provide programmatic read access to all content using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 1) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 1]

5.2 Provide programmatic write access to the value attribute of form controls using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 1) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 1]

5.3 Provide progammatic support for the event model and methods for form controls and links using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 2 CR) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 2]

5.4 Provide programmatic write access to all element of the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 1) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 3]

5.5 Provide progammatic support for the event model and methods for all elements using the interfaces specified in the W3C Document Object Model (DOM level 2 CR) and exporting those interfaces to other applications . [Priority 3]

some comments from CMN, GR, RS combine 5.5 and 5.3 change priority to 1 comments from Mark Novak about event model. need to get Al Gillman and Daniel Dardelier to review this. JG invited PF folks belatedly, would like to invite them to another meeting

GR: at PF face 2 face meeting, Arnaud was receptive to our concerns, wants a draft of wish list for dom 3, coordinate UA and PF concerns. PF is closed group, public disucssion difficult.

GR: pf not happy with Dom 2, growing pains, want dom 2 out, to work on dom 3 to address large holes. keyboard event model is absent, people may programs for pointing device rather than device independence.

Action JG: invite PF Al, Daniel, CMN and Mark Novak to next meeting Feb 23

Action GR: to wake up CMN, techniques coming soon.

da: what about script events, assemble a jigsaw puzzle, using keyboard, how to make mouse work

jg: see 1.1, if no dom 2 support, then use msaa or other technology to provide access. made 5 checkpoints for more specificity.

should we talk about dom 2. not discussed in Last call. are we changing document so much that we must go back to last call.

5.CR#191: Does a pause function satisfy checkpoint 2.2?

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#191

da: I don't think so.

jg: smil presentation, periodically a link appears,

da: link appears intermittently, must click link or pause button before it disappears, same time either way. must be able to change speed of presentation.

dp: must know link is there first, then pause

jg: this is not presentation speed, in smil can say this link appears for this link.

jg: have a system that pauses at a link and does not go on until the user responds.

da: must be user configurable.

mq: not a pause under user control,

action DA: rewrite technique for 2.2 (see list)

mq: select box, in navigating list, the site changes, does pause apply here

jg: poor authoring, script controls the timing.

gr: worked on techniques for that.

jg: this is not part of pausing.

mq: if we pause part of the screen, and other parts of screen continue changing, is this part of pause.

jg: no, different from specific markup, what you are talking about is related to scripts. what you describe should be coded to transform gracefully, if scripts are off.

gr: better address to the guidelines group, javascript controled image links that update on a timing. wrote a noscript version, or do a page refresh with announcement that page refreshes at x interval. this is authoring practice. what can a ua reasonably expected to do to repair bad authoring.

6.CR#192: Does hiding video satisfy checkpoint 3.3

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#192

jg: computer processing video, it is not rendered.

dp: allow reading of contigeous materials

da: works for me, if distracted by video then hide it,

mq: is there a time when you know what the link is audio or video or smil

jg: yes, link could call a media player, or some object.

dp: in IE can turn all of those, what about embedded objects

jg: what about java script,

da: how to control

ja: if not render video are captions included with video?

jg: authors of controls or native control of rendering of video

dp: people with vi want to know whats there and whats on the screen but inform the user,

da: should have content,transcript, longdesc available for media content

jg: should get an indication that something is playing

jg: use css to hide video

mq: in webspeak play audio but don't display video

dp: this is a user option to hide information, need some information about when media has stopped, etc.

dp: css hidden, does not remove processor/bandwidth load.

da: not an accessibility issue so much as computer issuer.

jg: this is p1, css hidden might be a useful technique. if you procees the video but not render it is ok.

Action: ja use css display=none to techniques, or don't call up video player, or hide in some other fashion

7.CR#193: In the case of animations, does checkpoint 4.5 mean a requirement to step through or slow the speed as well as being able to turn it off?

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#193

da: step through not part of original intent.

jg: review techniques, stepping would work for video but not audio. this is address in 4.6 this would not satisfy 4.5.

da: slowing rate is different from stepping through.

Action: jg-add reference in 4.5 to 4.6 in regard to stepping throught animation.

jg: 4.6 start stop etc are discrete functions, 4.5 is changing rate. discuss giving feedback to those who raised issues.

Action: jg check with Ian about feedback to issues raiser.

8.CR#194: In a timed presentation does checkpoint 7.2 mean return to the time that the user was at in a previous MM rendering

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#194

dp: not the intenet of the checkpoint. not sure if it available

mq: can return to place in a stream, function in g2 go to a clip and return to a point where you left it, if it is not a live stream.

da: could be difficult for easily distract folks

jg: maintain history list

gr: analogous to restarting a download.

mq: does this apply to mm?

jg: gr what do you think?

gr: covered by cp that says retain user focus. we are not specific as to type of content. useful to extend to any media. user configuration is the key to this. may be time I need to return exactly where I left off.

mq: not an accessibility issue

gr: general usability issue

jg: some run in the background,

dp: implementation of streaming content would be impossible

gr: right not streaming (live), that is comming from a file.

da: what if have frames, video frame and question frame. if focus controls the video then video stops when answereing questions.

dp: frames are usally not part of history, this is a configurable situation.

jg: origionally this was an orientation issue, restore orientation. don't know of similar function in media player, describes scenario,

ja: digital talking books can bookmark audio stream

dp: not mechanism

da: media player..

jg: player called in response to an event, can you browse media sources using

gr: has a word processor history mechanism of last x number of sites visited.

jg: consensus? discuss on list. review history mechanism, can you return to place in non-live stream when returning to a stream. does the player do this or need to do this. is this a P1 in that situation.


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.