UAWG teleconference -- 22 Feb 2007

<AllanJ> scribe: Jan Richards

<JR> scribe: JR

Review and discuss proposed expansions "Requirements Document"

JA: PP did 1d...nicely done
... Really liked external and internal
... Where from

PP: I wrote it

JA: Internal extensions...maybe need diff term for third party extensions

Link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0026.html

PP: But maybe internal is wrong word, meant in-process but maybe that's too technical
... And external meant out-of-process (ie. assitive techs)
... Technically can have in-process AT's like Firevox

JA: There is another external thing - external players

JR: agree "extensions" is ok

JA: OK should we just go with "Assistive Technologies" and drop external?

CL: HPR had browser embedded in it

PP: HPR is a browser

JA: Base browser, extensions, assistive technologies

KF: That's ok, distinctions are not critical at this point

CL: May run into it later then we can handle it

JA: OK, will incorporate PP's things with this change

CL: maybe use comprehended instead of apprehended

CL to will do 3a,b,c,d

CL: Tried to take defining approach...
... What are W3c techs, non-w3c techs,...
... Should we limit ourselves a bit?

JA: Let's just word as an example

CL: Non-W3c techs are just things we've spoken about before

JA: SHould we add in video formats...QT, Real, etc

KF: The more specific, the less flexible the format will be

CL: Compound doc - just wording from compound docs page
... Then tried to define platforms...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0031.html

CL: Then programming interfaces...
... THen finally emerging techs
... So 3a has most of the info

PP: XUL in wrong place

KF: Working on 1e...

<KFord> ACTION: KF to 3f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<KFord> f. Consider UI extensions that modify/manipulate the view (e.g. Grease monkey, allow users to modify rendered content through scripting)

<KFord> Ensure UAG 2.0 addresses behavior of extensions and related technologies that allow the user to modify the view through scripting and other techniques such that these changes are made available to all appropriate accessibility mechanisms.

KF: The risk is that sometimes ua's don't propogate textension things all the way back
... example...let's say User Agent extension allow an element to be removed from the view but access API not updated

JR, KF: Thinks it's a good point.

oops, Jr, JA

KF will do 1f

KF: What was the point again...

JA: Point is that 70-80% of UAAG has some amount of configuration attached....
... Can be burdensome to require a huge amount of customization

JR: agree

KF: OK, strightforward

JA: We do have a profiles requirement
... OK what ext...

CL: Not sure what to do with 3d

<scribe> ACTION: CL to Resend combined 3abc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: JA to Will combine KF's 3f and 3d [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: KF to Send 1f text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action04]

JA: question on 3d...

CL: In process things don't really need to ignore DOM for access APIs
... Extensions only use DOM.

JA: Web API is new W3 activity.

CL: Aaron L and also PF group looking at it

JA: SHould we limit ourselves to the accessibility APIs..
... Jump back...
... On platform, do mobile devices fit?

CL: Yes, probably.
... OK will add

JR to will do 3e

<AllanJ> JR: PF says 3e should be a protocol not in requirements

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0023.html

Al's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0024.html

<AllanJ> JA: Ubiquitous Web in still emerging

KF: This needs to be here

<AllanJ> KF: customization needs to be addressed

KF: At least in req doc stage

CL: It's already in current UAAG

<scribe> ACTION: JR to Add a sentence to 3e saying we'll keep an eye on emerging protocols in this area [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action05]

JA JR Work 3 points at bottom into section 2

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/2007/02/15-ua-minutes.html#action11

<AllanJ> JR: so we can drop the extra verbage.

<AllanJ> JA: yes

<AllanJ> JR: incorporate various points into existing outline as stated

<AllanJ> JR: aDD AS 3 a iv.: Web applications using custom controls, not recognized by browsers (ARIA will be relevant).

<AllanJ> JR: this should be covered in CLs new information.

JR,JA will do 2a, 2b

<AllanJ> JA: right.

<AllanJ> JR: review 2a and 2b

<AllanJ> JR: Recommends combining with new wording

<AllanJ> ...2a. Consider modularizing the UAAG 2.0 document. One module would

<AllanJ> address "core" browser capabilities (i.e. features for people needing

<AllanJ> some accessibility support, but who do not use assistive technologies)

<AllanJ> Other modules might address voice browsers, speech input, etc. that,

<AllanJ> while important, are not as relevant to "basic" browsers.

<AllanJ> JA: like the combination

JA to will do 3h

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0030.html

JA: Think skins is a non issue
... Animated icons in address bar just gets covered by guidelines - no need for special mention
... Teasers that there may be possible hacking possibilities but no clear info

<scribe> ACTION: JA to will do 1c [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: JA to will do 1e [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action07]

<scribe> ACTION: JA to Will do 2c [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: JA to Clarify thoughts about use cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ua-minutes.html#action09]

CL: Just resent #a-c
... Just resent 3a-c

- DRAFT -

UAWG teleconference

22 Feb 2007

Attendees

Contents