W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for March 2nd, 2000


Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, March 2nd
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

none

Discussion

Issue 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

Proposed Resolution:

  1. Change wording "Use and conform to W3C specifications when they are available and appropriate for a task."
  2. Add note: Implementing one accessible format
  3. Add techniques: From ATAG "Specifications that become W3C Recommendations after an authoring tool's development cycles permit input are not considered "available" in time. "

Issue 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

Proposed Resolution:

  1. Narrow scope to style and input configuration
  2. Add technique: Accessible browser project portable configuration file

Issue 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

Proposed Resolution:

  1. Make current list of items is minimum requirement, plus any that we may have missed

Issue 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

Proposed Resolution:

  1. Ensure that the most frequently used functions are the most easily activated in the default configuration.
  2. Add technique: Show operating system conventions

CR#200: Checkpoint 5.5 on timely exchanges, developers not unclear on how they know they have satisfied this checkpoint

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#200

Resolution Options:

  1. Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html
  2. Ian's pending proposal

CR#201: 5.5 "Ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely manner" should be a priority 1

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#201

Resolution Options:

  1. Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html
  2. Ian's pending proposal

CR#202: User agent configuration to render NOFRAMES content

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#202

Proposed Resolution:

  1. HTML 4.0 Specification issues related to NOFRAMES rendering
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1

CR#204: Add collated text to Checkpoint 2.6 and 4.8 or create a new checkpoint at lower priority

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#204

Proposed Resolution:

  1. Add collated text to checkpoints
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0343.html

CR#205: Timing issues related to AT missing or not being synchronized to document changes

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#205

Resolution Options:

  1. Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html
  2. Ian's pending proposal

CR#206: Precise specification of what parts of DOM are required

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#206

Resolution Options:

  1. Add W3C DOM level 2 Event Module at Priority 2
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html
  2. Do not include rteference to DOM Event Model

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

RSVP Present:
Kitch Barnicle
David Poehlman
Mickey Quenzer
Dick Brown
Denis Anson
Harvey Bingham
Gregory Rosmaita
Mark Novak
Charles McCathieNevile
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets:
Madeleine Rothberg


Action Items

Open Action Items

  1. IJ: Split checkpoint 5.1 (28 January Draft) into read and UI write as stated in minutes
  2. IJ: Add a cross-reference from 2.1 to 5.1 and say in 5.1 that this is a special case of 2.1
  3. IJ: Add techniques to checkpoint 7.2 for synchronous multi-media presentation (space and time)
  4. IJ: Ensure that techniques for checkpoint 1.5 talk about using status bar to display message
  5. IJ: Incorporate proposal for checkpoint 1.5 from minutes
  6. IJ: Add rationale to Checkpoint 1.5: if you're deaf blind you might need this (Braille display).
  7. DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints
  8. JA: Rewrite techniques for 3.3 (see minutes)
  9. MR: Review techniques for topic 3.1 (Multi-media)
  10. MR: Review techniques for Guideline 4 (Multi-media)

New Action Items

  1. IJ: Update the document based on todays resolutions
  2. DP: Send NN profile info.
  3. CMN: Suggest some techniques related to the good bits of the DOM Level 2 event module (related to checkpoint on notification 5.4).

Completed Action Items

  1. IJ: Propose checkpoint to address event notification timing issue
    Status: cancelled
  2. DB: See if microsoft can produce HTML version of their developer guidelines
    Status: Discussed with Greg Lowney and is in process
  3. MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this?
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0248.html
  4. MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.
    Status: done, but no reponses yet
  5. RS: Take timely and synchronization issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian
    Status: done

Minutes

Next meeting: 9 March at 2pm ET

8 March extra meeting cancelled

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0418.html

1) Review of Open Action Items

1.IJ: Propose checkpoint to address event notification timing issue
Not done, but discussions, canceled due to resolution in telecon

OTHER IJ Actions in next draft

2.IJ: Split checkpoint 5.1 (28 January Draft) into read and UI write as stated in minutes

3.IJ: Add a cross-reference from 2.1 to 5.1 and say in 5.1 that this is a special case of 2.1

4.IJ: Add techniques to checkpoint 7.2 for synchronous multi-media presentation (space and time)

5.IJ: Ensure that techniques for checkpoint 1.5 talk about using status bar to display message

6.IJ: Incorporate proposal for checkpoint 1.5 from minutes

7.IJ: Add rationale to Checkpoint 1.5: if you're deaf blind you might need this (Braille display).

8.DB: Ask IE Team about publication of review of IE 5 and Pri 1 checkpoints
No info.

9.DB: See if microsoft can produce HTML version of their developer guidelines

DB: Status Done: Greg Lowney has wanted to get the docs into HTML. Asked Webmaster to do so.

CMN: Use "tidy" to clean up Word 2000 output.
http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

10.JA: Rewrite techniques for 3.3 (see minutes)

JG: JA says for next week.

11.MK: For 4.8 check if any media players do this?
MK: Done.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0248.html

12.MK: Find out techniques for sending text search requests to servers of streamed text.

MK: I've sent mail, but received no replies.

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

JG: MK will try to post for Friday.

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

JG: MR will try to post for Friday.

15.RS: Take timely and synchronization issues to WAI PF. Get input from MSAA developers as well. Craft email to PF WG with Ian
Status: Dropped.

2) Issue 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

Resolved:
1.Change wording "Use and conform to W3C specifications when they are available and appropriate for a task."
2.Add note: Implementing one accessible format
3.Add techniques: From ATAG "Specifications that become W3C Recommendations after a user agent's development cycles permit input are not considered "available" in time."

Action IJ: Implement this resolution.

DA: This is basically saying: Use W3C, then system standards, then your own accessible methods. "When they are appropriate" means "if there's a straightforward way with a W3C spec, you should do this.

KB: I have no problem with this wording and the accompanying note.

3) Issue 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

Resolved:
1.Narrow scope to that which is specified in the guidelines as configurable (style and input config).
2.Add technique: Accessible browser project portable configuration file

IJ: Note that Netscape uses X resources, which can be used on any X-windows enabled machine.

Action DP: Send NN profile info.

Action IJ: Implement this resolution.

4) Issue 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

Proposed Resolution:

1.Make current list of items is minimum requirement, plus any that we may have missed

DP: How does a UA know the size?

JG: Do a GET on the header?

DA: Do you want this always for all links, or just be able to query the link? Could be expensive to do if it's not query.

DP: I think it is useful to have this available when the link is rendered. Query/rendered should be configurable.

CMN: I think we should specify "what's available to the browser" without having to go get information from HTTP calls. Note that this also depends on the linking mechanism.

IJ:
- What's in the markup (attributes, content)
- What's the UA's state about the link.
- External information it could get.

IJ: Charles has proposed the first two types of info.

DA: Seems reasonable as minimal information.

JG: Who decides whether you satisfy the checkpoint?

CMN: It's known since in spec or the UA knows this info.

Resolved:
- Change checkpoint text to be something like: "Make available author-supplied and user agent state information about links."
- Add technique to distinguish this info from fetched. (more than the minimal requirement)

Action IJ: Implement this resolution.

5) Issue 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

Resolved:
1.Ensure that frequently used functions are easily activated in the default configuration.
2.Add technique: Use operating system conventions to indicate configuration.

DP: How do you verify easily?

IJ: How did ATAG deal with this?

CMN: There is subjectivity in this, but this is a reasonable person type test.

DA: What are frequently used functions? Navigation, accessing pages, etc.

Action IJ: Implement this resolution.

6) CR#200: they know they have satisfied this checkpoint

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#200

Resolution Options:

1.Merge requirement in with other applicable checkpoints
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0359.html

2.Ian's pending proposal

IJ:
- Drop it.
- Leave it as is.
- Leave it as is with an example (note) relating to in process communication.
- Comparable performance to what you get from scripts.
JG: We don't know what that performance is.
MN: But that performance level accepted in the industry. If we could get AT performance with what scripting can do now...
MQ: But hard to quantify the performance of scripts...
- Distinguish static from dynamic? AT developers thought static just as important.

DA: I don't think we should drop it.

CMN: I feel strongly it shouldn't be dropped.

KB: Does this fit into the category of general accessible application design?

IJ: Why is this problem different from a slow download. CMN: If the page downloads and starts doing something while you're doing something, you'll never know what happened.

DP: Like playing your video tape before your television picture has appeared.

JG: How about: "Use programming techniques that ensure a timely exchange of information." The programmer can't do better than what's available to the programmer/os.

KB: Does this make it more verifiable?

JG: Say clearly in a note that developers should be looking for the most effective techniques.

KB: To me this sounds like general programming advice that's not specific to user agents.

RS: I think it's smart to say that you want to avoid cross-process communication.

CMN: This is an implementation requirement. Our problem is expressing the requirement in words other than examples.

JG: Can we talk about it in terms of "conventions"?

RS: The conventions of today are too slow.

Resolved: Leave checkpoint as is and add an example note.

7) CR#201: 5.5 "Ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely manner" should be a priority 1

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#201

DA: P1 for dynamic pages.

RS: Also for large static docs.

IJ: I oppose P1 for static, since information is still available. However, for dynamic, problems if the rate of exchange of info is less than the rate of change of the information.

KB: But we allow users to stop dynamically changing pages. (P1)

JG: Also, 2.2

RS: MSAA may not have been used extensively in the past due to performance issues.

IJ: You fail 2.1 (access to all content) if you don't make available content that is changing. This is already P1.

CMN, RS, MN: I can live with this, though a sludgy way around this.

Resolved: Add a note to 2.1 to clarify that it covers dynamically changing content.

8) CR#202: User agent configuration to render NOFRAMES content

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#202

Proposed Resolution:

1.HTML 4.0 Specification issues related to NOFRAMES rendering http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1

IJ: Since 2.1 is not strictly through the UI, then making available through an API sufficient.

GR: Recall, that access to frame alt requirement was dropped for a note, but the note no longer there:

Mechanisms for specifying alternative content vary according to markup language. For instance, in HTML or SMIL, the "alt" attribute specifies alternative text for many elements. In HTML, the content of the OBJECT element is used to specify alternative content, the "summary" attribute applies to tables, etc. In HTML, the NOFRAMES element specifies alternative content for frames. The ability to access frame alternatives is important for users of some screen readers and users with some cognitive impairments.

Resolved: Ian will edit this and add to definition of alternative equivalents for content.

9) CR#204: Add collated text to Checkpoint 2.6 and 4.8 or create a new checkpoint at lower priority

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#204

Proposed Resolution:

1.Add collated text to checkpoints
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0343.html

MK: If it's not synchronized, no problem.

IJ: Is this more burdensome than a caption?

MK: Same as caption.

Resolved: Adopt Eric's proposal.

Action IJ: Review Eric's proposal by Friday.

10) CR#205: Timing issues related to AT missing or not being synchronized to document changes

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#205

Resolved: Refer to #200.

11) CR#206: Precise specification of what parts of DOM are required

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#206

MN: I and others have a number of concerns about this module. I think we should leave out of this draft.

CMN: I think it's tricky to put it in. There are good bits and not so good bits.

HB: I wouldn't miss it.

DA: We may also be covered by 6.1 (available and applicable).

Action CMN: Suggest some techniques related to the good bits (related to checkpoint on notification 5.4).

Resolved: Do not add the events module.


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.