W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI UA Telecon for August 25th, 1999

Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wednesday, August 25th
Time: 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
Call-in: W3C Tobin Bridge (+1) 617-252-7000

Agenda

Open Action Items

  1. JG: Run IE through guidelines.
  2. JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.
  3. IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document.
  4. IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
  5. IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
  6. IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
  7. IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes conservatively to A, B, and C..."
  8. IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in the document.
  9. IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've got).
  10. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.
  11. IJ: Propose reordering to the list.
  12. IJ: Issue 56 resolution
    a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6.
    b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6
    c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6.
  13. HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
  14. HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
  15. GR: Run Hal through the guidelines.
  16. GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration for SELECT form control behavior.
  17. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
  18. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
  19. KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy Chisholm of Web Content
  20. CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines.
  21. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  22. RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader.

Discussion

Attendance

Chair: Jon Gunderson

Scribe: Ian Jacobs

Present:Harvey Bingham
Glenn Gordon
David Poehlman
Jim Allen
Charles McCathieNevile
Gregory J. Rosmaita
Mark Novak
Marja Koivunen
Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: Denis Anson
Allan Cantor
Kitch Barnicle

Completed Action Items

  1. JG: Run IE through guidelines.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0203.html
  2. IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document.
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  3. IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  4. IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  5. IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0182.html
  6. IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes conservatively to A, B, and C...".
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  7. IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in the document..
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  8. IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've got). .
    Status: Done, will appear in next working draft
  9. IJ: Propose reordering to the list.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0185.html
  10. CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0208.html
  11. GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration for SELECT form control behavior.
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html

Continued Action Items

  1. JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.
  2. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.
  3. IJ: Issue 56 resolution
    a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6.
    b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6
    c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6.
  4. HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
  5. HB: Run pwWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
  6. GR: Run Hal through the guidelines.
  7. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
  8. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines.
  9. KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy Chisholm of Web Content
  10. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
  11. RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader.

New Action Items

  1. IJ:
    a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about volatility of Working Drafts and products.
    b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations.
  2. IJ Send proposal to WCAG to propose different wording on the requirement for text rendering by UAs.
  3. IJ: Create a list of metadata elements and techniques for HTML
  4. CMN: Send proposal to the UA list about including an implementation period as part of the recommendation process
  5. CMN: Propose something about schemas.
  6. CMN: Talk to Dan Brickley about document structure and site mapping. Will send a list of tools that make use of meta information to the list.
  7. JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)
  8. Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.
  9. RS: Consider the "applicability clause" and propose rewording of the conformance statement for checkpoints.
  10. RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the list related to review of Home Page Reader.
  11. Reviewers: Read conformance section of guidelines before testing sub-grouping of checkpoints with current products
  12. Reviewers: Should be as specific as possible about product versions, os versions, etc.

Minutes

Agenda [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0174.html

RSVP Responses

ResolvedFor requests by Jon to RSVP, please respond privately to Jon or Ian.

Agenda 1) Review of Action items:

  1. JG: Run IE through guidelines.
    Status: done
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0203.html
  2. JG: Draft outline for section 5.3.3 of techniques document.
    Status: Not done.
  3. IJ: Ensure that definition of "natural language" appears in document.
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  4. IJ: Checkpoint 9.5 clarify or change wording of "make available"
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  5. IJ: Checkpoint 9.9 - add "for" example from HTML.
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  6. IJ: Send note to list asking for techniques contributions.
    Status: Done.
  7. IJ: Checkpoint 9.10 - Change to "In particular, make changes conservatively to A, B, and C..."
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  8. IJ: Checkpoint 10.5 - Clarify wording to indicate relative position in the document.
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  9. IJ: Add to issues list - What to do with image with no alt text that's in a link. Worst case is an image map. We render part of the URL (the most we've got).
    Status: Done. Will appear in next draft.
  10. IJ: Run NN (and Mozilla) through guidelines.
    Status: Not done.
  11. .IJ: Propose reordering to the list.
    Status: Done.
  12. IJ: Issue 56 resolution
    a) Mention media objects as example in checkpoint 1.6.
    b) List as example in checkpoint 9.6
    c) Incorporate media objects into 10.5 and 10.6.
    Status: Not done.
  13. HB, RS: Look at techniques document.
    HB Status: Pending.
    HB Status: Pending.
  14. HB: Run PWWebSpeak (with Mark H.) through the guidelines.
    HB Status: Installed it and using it. For next week.
  15. GR: Run Hal + Windowize through the guidelines.
    HB Status: Pending.
  16. GR: Clarify your proposal on user agent configuration for SELECT form control behavior.
    Status: Done
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0129.html
  17. DP: Technique 3.6 - Propose techniques
    Status: writing madly.
  18. DP: Run Jaws for Windows through the guidelines. Status: Pending. Lynx 32, IE, NN, and Opera!

    GG: Are these results for internal review only? IJ: Working group should decide ultimate scope:
    a) At least Team/WG.
    b) Member-visible for Proposed Rec.
    c) Should they be visible when we go to Recommendation?

    CMN: I think it's public by charter requirement.

    JG: Yes, anything posted to the list is public.

    DP: When AFB did evaluation, we sent results to manufacturer for comments before publication. We should consider this to encourage (notably assistive technology) developers to move towards conformance. MK: But is the goal to evalute the guidelines or the product?

    IJ: I propose linking to these reviews from the WG home page with a proper disclaimer that these comments don't reflect consensus.

    GG: This issue arose since our beta product does a better job than what's on the street. No objections.

    Action IJ:
    a) Add links to WG page with disclaimer about volatility of Working Drafts and products.
    b) Proposed disclaimer to be inserted in evaluations.

    Action Reviewers: Should be as specific as possible about product versions, os versions, etc.

  19. KB: Fill in the table for UAGL and coordinate with Wendy.
    Deadline for this action 2 weeks.
    Status: Pending.
  20. CMN: Run Amaya through guidelines.
    Status: Done
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0178.html
  21. GG: Review proposal for techniques for accessing content.
    Status: Not done.
  22. RS: Coordinate review of HomePage reader.
    Status: Done. Review pending.

Announcement

JG: Joint meeting between UA and Web content on 26 August 1999 4:00 EST
Navigation/Grouping techniques. To be coordinated with WCAG WG at teleconference tomorrow.

Agenda 2) Dependent user agents that may also be considered stand-alone user agents.

RS: For at least 40% of the checkpoints: If you're developing a technology like PWWebspeak, market is users with blindness. So, turn on/off blinking images should not be imposed since not applicable.

JG: The spec says that if you don't support a particular technology (e.g., images) the checkpoint doesn't apply.

RS: What if you do visual rendering also? What if you render the Web page as would be seen by general user?

CMN: Like emacsspeak.

GR: When you talk about visual view of HomePage Reader, is this the text-only view, or general graphic view?

RS: You may want both.

GR: Specifically about HPR - when you are looking at "Netscape view", this isn't controlled by HPR. The text view is. I think that there may be a case for a third-classification. There may be dependencies, but in some rendering cases there may not be control.

IJ: I think that the tool that provides the UI is responsible for UI-related checkpoints.

GR: But onus may be on the rendering engine for some checkpoints. I think there's a case for more clarification or a third classification.

CMN: I don't agree. If HPR passes rendered info untouch, that doesn't mean they wash their hands of it.

IJ: Ian reads clause about applicability of checkpoints.

IJ: Question:
1) Is the clause sufficiently visible?
2) Does that cover the 40% you are concerned with?

CMN: For the record: I don't think two classes are useful.

IJ: Perhaps applicability clause is sufficiently flexible that two classes aren't necessary, but I hesitate to reopen that issue.

Action RS: Consider the "applicability clause" and propose rewording.

Action RS: Post list of checkpoints at issue to the list.

Agenda 3) Issue 3

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#3

Agenda 4) Issue 58

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#58

Keyboard access to select form controls when there is an ONCHANGE event handler attached to the control

Refer to GR's modified proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0151.html

RESOLVED: Modify checkpoint 10.6. Ian can edit the following text from Gregory:

10.6 Prompt the user to confirm the submission of form content if the submission mechanism is not explicitly activated by the user. [Priority 2]

GR: Techniques in original proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0139.html

Agenda 5) Issue 63:

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#63

Checkpoint proposal from Marja to freeze time-sensitive content.

MK: Make available content that depends on time in a time-independent manner. And allow people to "rewind" time-sensitive content and find out temporal context of particular content.

Same as issue 44, resolved last week to add a checkpoint for time-sensitive active elements.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html

IJ: Do we need more than active elements?

JA: Is a media element considered an active element?

IJ: Covered by the multimedia checkpoints.

Resolved: For now, limit to active elements.

CMN: I'd like to link this issue back to the conformance issue. It's unclear whether the SMIL player conforms as a desktop graphical browser. If it doesn't apply, who are we writing this checkpoint for. Unclear from current conformance statement that the guidelines apply to the SMIL player.

Agenda 6) Issue 73

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#73

Text rendering of client-side image maps

IJ: In HTML, "alt" is required on AREA. But other ways to create image maps without requiring text attributes. "title" may not be present. These are techniques.

MK: I think we need this checkpoint.

GG: I disagree. Unless there's a way of indicating that the text links are duplications. Suppose that there's an AREA element without an "alt" attribute. We may use the URL and thus speak it twice.

GR: I agree with this concern. I'd rather the dependent user agent get information from the markup rather than the renderer get the information from duplication.

IJ: These are links and so covered by checkpoint 1.2.

RESOLVED:
a) Don't add a new checkpoint. This issue is covered by checkpoint 1.2
b) Highlight the case of image maps in comment after 1.2
c) Include techniques for image maps (e.g., getting alt text of image in link, using title, getting external text media objects for SMIL.)

Action: IJ send proposal to WCAG to propose different wording on the requirement for text rendering by UAs.

Agenda 7) Issue 72

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#72

What should UAs do with metadata? (Asked for by WCAG 1.0).

IJ: Broad issue: might be keywords, supplemental info, doc relationships, natural language, navigation bar, Dublin Core, etc.

JG: Lynx, Amaya use LINK.

Action CMN: Talk to Dan Brickley about document structure and site mapping. Will send a list of tools that make use of this information.

GR: Another issue that keeps popping up for me in the guidelines: a lot say "If this happens, do this." Metadata one framework for this.

CMN: For list of links, metadata is the long way around.

JG: We need to have a list of metadata elements and attributes in HTML, SMIL, also schemas. Perhaps add checkpoints related to that which we don't already cover.

(Source means element and attribute).

Action Marja: Compose list of metadata sources for SMIL.

Action IJ: Compose list of metadata sources for HTML.

Action JA: Compose list of metadata sources for CSS. (e.g., generated text)

Action CMN: Propose something about schemas.

Deadline two weeks.

Agenda 8) Issue 74:

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#74

Value of checkpoint on volume control.

Resolved last week.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0153.html

Agenda 9) Issue 75:

http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#75

Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs?

Proposed: Add "electronic".

CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in electronic form. "Ensure that there is a version of the product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"

Resolved: Change wording of 3.1 as per CMN's proposal.

Agenda 10) Configuration checkpoints.

GR: Two checkpoints proposed: one for links and one for forms. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0127.html

Action JG: Will be on agenda for next week.

Agenda 11) Order of guidelines. ,?h3>

IJ: See proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0185.html

DP: Add explanation of order.

Resolved: Implement this proposal with explanation in upcoming draft.

Agenda 12) Reminders:

a) Next face-to-face in November. Meeting page:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/1999/10/ua-agenda
b) Following face-to-face in January

CMN: Does there need to be an implementation period during or after Last Call?

Action CMN: Send proposal about this to the list.

Copyright  ©  1999 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.