[Accessibility] Minutes for June 11 meeting

John Goldthwaite john.goldthwaite at catea.org
Wed Jun 11 14:43:37 PDT 2003


Draft Minutes for Proposed FSG Accessibility Workgroup 6/11/03

Attendees:
Doug Beattie
John Goldthwaite
Bill Haneman
Sharon Snider

Action Items:
Bill - Rough draft of FSG102 Section 1a-d
Janina =96 Draft of FSG102 section 1 a, e, f
Janina - introduction for proposal to FSG board
Janina - Contact people we haven't heard from in a while
Janina  - rewrite on Roadmap
John =96 compare MSAA and AT-SPI: requirements for ABI
Doug =96 get example of other 102-1 specifications

Items for future coverage:
File format,

For next week: Review roadmap, look at XKB document, work on 102.
Next meeting- June 18 at 2pm EST.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Sharon updated roadmap and sent out on 6/5/03 and set up the
Calendar on the website.

We discussed what the overall format of the deliverables need to
be and how to
take the documents such as the XKB standard and get it into a
format that is
appropriate for LSB.

Bill sent a rough description, what does it fit into.  XKB is an
existing spec in a
different domain.  Where will the group deliver its work, what it
will they expect
as deliverables?

Interested in certain end user features.  Want to create an ABI
for accessing
those features.  In this area we can make statements about user
visible features
that are required.  Have identified a pre-existing ABI/API that
meets those
needs.    How to turn Bill's email into part of our LSB access
spec, requirements
sets.
Doug-  C++ example- track various pieces, best practices.  Look
in LSB futures
activities

Bill- 2 parts of keyboard: ABI/API and exposure of those to
users.  Platform ABI
is what has been done in past.  Identify a feature conformance
requirement.
These have been different kind of activity.

Desktop user requirements =96 we don't do but make recommendations
to the
desktop group.
Doug- we have to specify the things at the system level and
provide what the
desktop will need.
Bill- Desktop needs certain features to be accessible.  Need to
specify what they
are or the ABI doesn't do any good.
Doug- we need to be involved in the desktop group so they know
what to do.

John =96 work backward from ABI to see what is need to support
them?
Bill =96 no, shouldn't need to do all of that.
Doug =96 could some of these be implemented in console mode as well
as X?
Bill- that was done in DOS but has not been implemented in Linux
console.  The
majority of AccessX users are not console users.
Doug =96 do we need to determine those requirements and send to
kernel people?
Bill- take user features and push them in both directions.  Don't
do too much
work on the console.  The ABI's can't be used by the console-
orthogonal to
console.  Main reasons for needing to use the console:
1)	because access to GUI is inferior,
 2) in situations when there is no alternative such as boot.
There are people who prefer text- mode- but don't need to be in
the real
console, could be using a virtual console in X.

XKB specification- Bill distributed a pdf version to us.  It was
converted
successfully to a text file.
 Doug- license?  It's the MIT X license

Bill- do we have example of 102-1 specification to see how other
groups have
approached the problems.  Doug is going to get some samples from
Scott.
May not be public documents.   Sharon will ask George where they
are.

Janina sent info on SVG with info on the SMIL license document.
How does XML play in LBG?  SVG important but we can't require
that it be
implemented in Linux.
File formats keep coming up but is that in our picture?  Doug has
someone that
could discuss with us, not necessarily next week.  There are some
file formats for
configuration purposes but not user files. This part of our
scoping, usually groups
have steered clear of it.

Dependency?  If we specify part of XKB as part of ABI =85 if part
of XKB not
compatible is it a problem as long as we're not using those
parts?
 Doug- XLIB.C symbol version =96 don't care about symbols we're not
referencing.
Bill =85.Don't want incompatible extensions and additions.
Doug- Are there things in XKB that aren't being maintained at a
lower level?
Bill- Probably are parts that are broken.  Probably wouldn't pass
a rigorous test
for an ABI.  It is such a huge spec, there are things that no one
has tested.

Doug- we can validate those things that we want used but don't
have do all.
Bill- standard only as good as conformance test- if you only test
half of the items
then you're really only requiring half.

For next week: Review roadmap, look at XKB document, work on 102.
Next meeting- June 18 at 2pm EST.

John Goldthwaite, Senior Research Scientist
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia
Tech
404 894-0563 (voice)
866 948-8282 (toll free voice/TTY)
john.goldthwaite at catea.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 030611_DraftMinutes.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27648 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments=
/20030611/339d014f/030611_DraftMinutes.doc
-------------- next part --------------
Draft Minutes for Proposed FSG Accessibility Workgroup 6/11/03  =


Attendees:
Doug Beattie
John Goldthwaite
Bill Haneman
Sharon Snider

Action Items:
Bill - Rough draft of FSG102 Section 1a-d
Janina =96 Draft of FSG102 section 1 a, e, f
Janina - introduction for proposal to FSG board
Janina - Contact people we haven't heard from in a while
Janina  - rewrite on Roadmap
John =96 compare MSAA and AT-SPI: requirements for ABI
Doug =96 get example of other 102-1 specifications  =


Items for future coverage:
File format,

For next week: Review roadmap, look at XKB document, work on 102.
Next meeting- June 18 at 2pm EST.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ =


Sharon updated roadmap and sent out on 6/5/03 and set up the =

Calendar on the website.  =


We discussed what the overall format of the deliverables need to be and how=
 to =

take the documents such as the XKB standard and get it into a format that i=
s =

appropriate for LSB.

Bill sent a rough description, what does it fit into.  XKB is an existing s=
pec in a =

different domain.  Where will the group deliver its work, what it will they=
 expect =

as deliverables?

Interested in certain end user features.  Want to create an ABI for accessi=
ng =

those features.  In this area we can make statements about user visible fea=
tures =

that are required.  Have identified a pre-existing ABI/API that meets those =

needs.    How to turn Bill's email into part of our LSB access spec, requir=
ements =

sets.  =

Doug-  C++ example- track various pieces, best practices.  Look in LSB futu=
res =

activities =


Bill- 2 parts of keyboard: ABI/API and exposure of those to users.  Platfor=
m ABI =

is what has been done in past.  Identify a feature conformance requirement.=
  =

These have been different kind of activity.

Desktop user requirements =96 we don't do but make recommendations to the =

desktop group.  =

Doug- we have to specify the things at the system level and provide what th=
e =

desktop will need.  =

Bill- Desktop needs certain features to be accessible.  Need to specify wha=
t they =

are or the ABI doesn't do any good. =

Doug- we need to be involved in the desktop group so they know what to do.

John =96 work backward from ABI to see what is need to support them?
Bill =96 no, shouldn't need to do all of that.
Doug =96 could some of these be implemented in console mode as well as X?
Bill- that was done in DOS but has not been implemented in Linux console.  =
The =

majority of AccessX users are not console users.  =

Doug =96 do we need to determine those requirements and send to kernel peop=
le?
Bill- take user features and push them in both directions.  Don't do too mu=
ch =

work on the console.  The ABI's can't be used by the console- orthogonal to =

console.  Main reasons for needing to use the console:
1)	because access to GUI is inferior, =

 2) in situations when there is no alternative such as boot.  =

There are people who prefer text- mode- but don't need to be in the real =

console, could be using a virtual console in X.  =


XKB specification- Bill distributed a pdf version to us.  It was converted =

successfully to a text file.
 Doug- license?  It's the MIT X license

Bill- do we have example of 102-1 specification to see how other groups hav=
e =

approached the problems.  Doug is going to get some samples from Scott.  =

May not be public documents.   Sharon will ask George where they are.

Janina sent info on SVG with info on the SMIL license document.  =

How does XML play in LBG?  SVG important but we can't require that it be =

implemented in Linux.  =

File formats keep coming up but is that in our picture?  Doug has someone t=
hat =

could discuss with us, not necessarily next week.  There are some file form=
ats for =

configuration purposes but not user files. This part of our scoping, usuall=
y groups =

have steered clear of it.  =


Dependency?  If we specify part of XKB as part of ABI =85 if part of XKB no=
t =

compatible is it a problem as long as we're not using those parts? =

 Doug- XLIB.C symbol version =96 don't care about symbols we're not referen=
cing.  =

Bill =85.Don't want incompatible extensions and additions.  =

Doug- Are there things in XKB that aren't being maintained at a lower level=
? =

Bill- Probably are parts that are broken.  Probably wouldn't pass a rigorou=
s test =

for an ABI.  It is such a huge spec, there are things that no one has teste=
d.  =


Doug- we can validate those things that we want used but don't have do all.=
  =

Bill- standard only as good as conformance test- if you only test half of t=
he items =

then you're really only requiring half.

For next week: Review roadmap, look at XKB document, work on 102.
Next meeting- June 18 at 2pm EST.


More information about the Accessibility mailing list