day 2 f2f minutes

1 Formulate Final 1.1 Requirements to TC

DISCUSSION: Quick review of current 1.1 requirements. Captured as an ODF document by RS.

Add soft and hard page breaks.
Correct wording to require table header structural markup (8.2.2)
Provide for author specified logical navigation.
Fix incorrect documentation on z-index. (9.2.15). Believed it may be a cut and paste error?

2 nav-order issue

DISCUSSION: Brought out as full agenda item

In agreement on navigation for impress
Native tables have their own native table navigation, Calc has its own keyboard navigation, richer functions. Screen reader cannot tell if its a Calc table or write table.
Editing could have additional functions over basic nav
HT showed slide of all combinations in tables, different types, with and without jaws.
PK. Could provide a nav model which is consistant. This in addition to legacy keys which are expected (would get complaints if these are lost)
DP. Agreement on principle. We should develop this model. Insufficient time to do a good job this face to face.
CA. For guidelines or ODF? We can't get common keystrokes, there will be conflicts.
PK. MT. For implementors. Proposal is a new set of keystrokes in addition. Then implement in FF, all ODF apps. For all tabular data. Does this change our decision on hiearchical nav model.
CA. Yes, could be useful if we can find keystrokes. Could be in UA specification.
RS. Generated proposal for WG. See separate ODF file.
Not in agreement over write and calc
calc and write; we do not have an agreed user interface nav model which is consistant. We need more work on this area. A stumbling block - is graphics layer navigation across all levels or hierarchical (e.g. table inside a writer document could be seen as at layer 2)
Sub group rejected page breaks as mandatory for schema. Re-worded with a pagination caveat.

Action item: Put forward a proposed general tabular navigation sce heme for spreadsheets, tables in wprd processors, presentations, html and Gtk table, to the WG for comment.

Who? JS. CA

Due date: By 30 June 06

3 Remaining reqirements review.

DISCUSSION: RS confirmed the remaining alt text proposals.

4 Structured tables in Presentations.

DISCUSSION: RS. Concern of change of user experience, cf Microsoft Office.

Discussion on Florian Reuters submission. Group supported it.
RS. Addressed concern. Checked for groups views. All in agreement.
RS built up the plans and current proposal. Agreed. See file odf11requirements052106a.odf, titled, ODF Accessibility Requirements.
Having met these requirements ODF can be used to produce DAISY Digital Audio which is in global use by blind and partially sighted people.

5 Hiro

DISCUSSION: Ran a demo on Accessibility checker, see www.alphaworks.com, Adesigner is the product.

DocExplorer. Alt view of a slide set. Works with Star office, Open office. Could use GtK, currently uses Jaws. Has been tested by CA. Future proposal to embed metadata for creation of accessible diagrams. E.g. Visio like diags could generate metadata automatically, this type of tool can provide an accessible tool. Currently connector only works on line based not on shape based. We have no metadata on custom shapes. For table metadata - who are the stakeholders.
We think the tree based view is very useful for accessibility.

6 Post 1.1 draft items

DISCUSSION: RS. Categories. Slides|drawings. Types of charts (CA work).

Navigation models. In slides, outline view and a slide.
RS. Look at other disabilities. E.g. giving presentations. E.g. Learning difficulties, largely ignored.
PK. Multi-modalities. Sync'd streams, alternative streams. Better access to charts and graphs.
Better navigation model for tabular data.
PK. Improve header associations in tabular data with multiple smaller tables. Also more general relationships, such as speaking formulae, cell labelling by row/column.

office-accessibility message

F2F Day 1

Attendees

Agenda