IRC log of ua on 2006-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:31:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
18:31:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc
18:57:39 [JR]
JR has joined #ua
18:58:17 [JR]
Scribe: JR
18:58:38 [parente]
parente has joined #ua
18:58:45 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has now started
18:58:47 [Zakim]
+Jim_Allan
18:59:07 [jallan]
title: UAWG Conference Call
18:59:34 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:59:36 [Zakim]
-[IBM]
18:59:37 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:59:44 [jallan]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006OctDec/0027.html
19:00:06 [jallan]
zakim, [IBM] is parente
19:00:06 [Zakim]
+parente; got it
19:01:56 [Zakim]
+??P12
19:02:12 [JR]
zakim, [??P12] is JR
19:02:12 [Zakim]
sorry, JR, I do not recognize a party named '[??P12]'
19:02:20 [JR]
zakim, [P12] is JR
19:02:20 [Zakim]
sorry, JR, I do not recognize a party named '[P12]'
19:02:43 [JR]
zakim, [??P12] is JR
19:02:43 [Zakim]
sorry, JR, I do not recognize a party named '[??P12]'
19:02:52 [jallan]
zakim, ??P12 is JR
19:02:52 [Zakim]
+JR; got it
19:06:00 [JR]
Topic: 10.1 Associate table cells and headers (P1)
19:07:40 [JR]
JR: Confused about sufficient techniques
19:07:46 [JR]
JA: But these are not normative
19:08:42 [JR]
JT: ATAG uses "sufficient in conjunction"
19:08:50 [JR]
JT=JR
19:09:12 [JR]
JR: in cases where both techniques should work together to meet the normative req
19:09:47 [JR]
JA: So Peter does ScReader just grab DOM?
19:10:02 [JR]
PP: Not on Linux - we depend on what Firefox gives us
19:10:29 [JR]
PP: But we can get table info through API
19:10:57 [JR]
JA: So doesn't matter about the visual things in 10.1?
19:11:25 [JR]
JA: Thinks that separate from visul rendering, there should be an underlying structure.
19:11:41 [JR]
PP: Right as long as proper table structure is used
19:12:43 [JR]
JA: CSS craziness plays in here.
19:12:55 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
19:12:55 [JR]
PP: Welcome to Web 2.0 :)
19:13:47 [cklaws]
cklaws has joined #ua
19:14:01 [jallan]
zakim, [IBM] is cklaws
19:14:01 [Zakim]
+cklaws; got it
19:14:06 [JR]
zakim, [IBM] is cklaws
19:14:06 [Zakim]
sorry, JR, I do not recognize a party named '[IBM]'
19:14:09 [JR]
zakim, IBM is cklaws
19:14:09 [Zakim]
sorry, JR, I do not recognize a party named 'IBM'
19:14:46 [JR]
JA: Where should this logic be done?
19:14:56 [JR]
PP: Browser probably will pass.
19:15:09 [JR]
PP: But in Linux we can
19:15:17 [JR]
PP:can't get DOM
19:15:36 [JR]
CL: Right on Windows we go to DOM because MSAA not rich enough
19:16:56 [JR]
CL: Only browser knows what source is...
19:17:25 [JR]
CL: (mean all the components of the browser)
19:19:10 [jallan]
CL: if the author used only css to structure a table, then the browser should the provide the structure of the css layout to accessibility api
19:21:17 [JR]
JA: CSS includes some specific table structure properties
19:21:34 [JR]
JA: SHould we require UA's to figure this CSS out?
19:22:46 [jallan]
action: JA Issue SHould we require UA's to figure this CSS out, and privide strudture to the accessibility api?
19:23:34 [jallan]
Group meeting
19:23:38 [jallan]
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/MGMoverview.html
19:23:55 [JR]
JA: Our group meeting has been approved for Jan 21,22
19:24:07 [JR]
C: Peter and Cathy are approved to go
19:24:33 [JR]
CL: Rich wants PF and UA to have a joint meeting.
19:25:05 [JR]
JR: AU is likely to pullout.
19:25:51 [JR]
JA: Still not quite getting his chair status.
19:26:15 [JR]
Clarify: JA is the chair, but just in terms of the automated w3 system
19:26:38 [JR]
JA: We have 3 more meeting after today and before xmas
19:27:08 [JR]
CL: PP and CL to miss Nov 22 mtg
19:27:42 [JR]
Correction: Dec 21st
19:28:12 [JR]
Dec 28 no mtg
19:29:09 [JR]
JA: OK Let's hustle and work on list to try and get our walkthrough done by around end of year...
19:29:22 [JR]
so a few weeks to prep for f2f
19:30:23 [JR]
JA: would also like to discuss WCAG, UAAG split
19:31:03 [JR]
Topic: 10.2 Highlight selection, content focus, enabled elements, visited links
19:32:15 [JR]
JA: No particular issue - but brings up same old OS-UA-author stylesheet issue
19:32:50 [JR]
JA: ABBR expansion issue related - AT's do lot's of handling
19:33:01 [JR]
CL: Where in 10.2?
19:33:17 [JR]
JA: Not - just reminds me of the same bundle of issues
19:36:13 [JR]
JR: Asks about figure in 10.1, seems to be a mockup?
19:36:27 [JR]
Action JA: Remove image in 10.1
19:38:35 [JR]
JR: 10.2 seems to be overly complicated - who uses font family as a highlighting?
19:38:57 [JR]
action JA: maybe highlight 10.2 for further discussion
19:39:32 [JR]
CL: Selection info comes from different place
19:39:58 [JR]
CL: DOM has focus events
19:40:21 [JR]
CL: But for example if gighlighted with text style, have to go to OS for that
19:41:11 [JR]
action JA: Cross check 10.2 with earlier checkpoint - maybe duplicate
19:41:44 [JR]
CL: Look at 4.3 and 9.1.
19:42:21 [JR]
JA: Maybe also 9.3
19:42:39 [JR]
Topic: 10.3 Single highlight configuration (P2)
19:43:54 [JR]
JR: This is yet another modifier-type checkpoint
19:44:17 [JR]
JA: We have lots of confuration checkpoints
19:44:38 [JR]
JA: If we say do this - later we say and allow it to be configured
19:44:56 [JR]
Action JA: Think about larger organization of "configurastion"
19:45:17 [JR]
JA: Does ScReader care?
19:45:30 [JR]
PP: Not really - we just get from API.
19:46:34 [JR]
JA: ScreenMags on Win are using MSAA
19:46:57 [JR]
PP: On Linux ScreenMags are driven by Screen Readers
19:47:30 [JR]
Topic: 10.4 Provide outline view (P2)
19:48:06 [JR]
JA: Didn't Safari do something with this?
19:49:34 [JR]
JR: IF not navigable - not useful - if navigable it becomes structured navigation
19:49:50 [JR]
PP: Useful for someone with low vision
19:49:59 [JR]
CL: Or cognitive disabilities
19:50:56 [JR]
JR: Agree with JA to drop TITLE from outline
19:51:37 [JR]
JA: See your point Cathy that it would not need to be navigable
19:52:43 [JR]
JA: Is this too granular - almost technique of 9.9 or important on its own.
19:52:49 [JR]
JA: ?
19:53:01 [JR]
CL: Intent different than navigation.
19:53:23 [JR]
CL: Much like in word, a TOC can be created.
19:55:27 [JR]
CL: Aaron came back..."no one ever does that"
19:55:47 [JR]
that=(CSS table markup)
19:56:21 [JR]
CL: Firefox does not support
19:56:49 [jallan]
10.4 for folks with cognitive issues this is important for non-cluttered visual view
19:57:59 [JR]
CL: Most CSS things came through to IE DOM as DOM style
19:58:39 [JR]
CL: Aaron says mostly conveyed through role attribute and computed style attributes
19:59:00 [JR]
CL: role=table cells, etc
19:59:23 [JR]
CL: Browser assigns the role
20:00:09 [JR]
JA: Let's wrap up this call
20:00:25 [JR]
JA: Let's try to handle JR and JA's comments on the list
20:00:35 [Zakim]
-cklaws
20:00:37 [Zakim]
-parente
20:00:39 [Zakim]
-Jim_Allan
20:00:48 [JR]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:00:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-minutes.html JR
20:00:55 [JR]
RRSAgent, set logs public
20:03:37 [JR]
Zakim, bye
20:03:37 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jim_Allan, parente, JR, cklaws
20:03:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ua
20:03:42 [JR]
RRSAgent, bye
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-actions.rdf :
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA Issue SHould we require UA's to figure this CSS out, and privide strudture to the accessibility api? [1]
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc#T19-22-46
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to Remove image in 10.1 [2]
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc#T19-36-27
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to maybe highlight 10.2 for further discussion [3]
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc#T19-38-57
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to Cross check 10.2 with earlier checkpoint - maybe duplicate [4]
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc#T19-41-11
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to Think about larger organization of "configurastion" [5]
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-ua-irc#T19-44-56