14 Jun 2007


See also: IRC log


KFord, JR, cklaws, [IBM]
Jim, Allan




<scribe> Scribe: JR

WCAG 2.0 comments WG seeks feedback ...

CL: 2.1.2 Keyboard (No Exception): ...
... Can keyboard settings StickyKeys be interfered with

KF: Prob not bad to have overarching statement

CL: Not a major issue, but maybe under Advisory
... 2.2.3 Pausing: Moving, blinking, scrolling, ...
... Just moving content that is pure decoration? Include blinking, scrolling, and auto-updating as well in the second sentence.

JR: Maybe need to define moving to include other things.

CL: 2.4.3 Focus Order: If a Web page can be navigated sequentially,...
... I'd like to see the How to section of this guideline contain an example of a form (like composing an email message) in a Web page with left side and top navigation bars. If the form controls all have tabindex values greater than zero and the navbars have no tabindex values, will this page meet the success criteria?

JR: Subjective...

CL: Really can mess up SR users

JR: What are they trying to do?

CL: If you're tried to set up tab order, can't let it become broken
... Would like my example clearly spelled out

KF: Classic example of situation where people may not know what ot do

JR: Bad sign that we are having trouble understanding this.

CL: Presentation is also problematic
... 2.4.4 Link Purpose (Context): The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text and its programmatically determined link context
... In the definition of "programmatically determined link context" and in the techniques for this guideline, the term "sentence" is used, and it talks about the screen reader providing commands to read a sentence. There is no semantic markup for a sentence and no programmatic way for a screen reader to determine a sentence in HTML, so don't use that term. A screen reader should be able to handle the other techniques involving parent element text, element attrib
... No semantic markup foer what is a sentence.

PP: Agree

CL: Also, why is there a separate guideline for 2.4.8 Link Purpose (Link Text): The purpose of each link can be identified from the link text. (Level AAA) Just for different levels of compliance?

JR: Agree that this not needed.

CL: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of Web pages where content is not the result of, or a step in, a process
... Is content only visible content or does it also include alternative content such as alt text, title text, etc?
... It should be.
... 2.4.9 Section Headings: Where content is organized into sections, the sections are indicated with headings.
... ckl: If using the title attribute of a frame and ARIA live region properties are sufficient or advisory techniques in addition to using the heading element, then I would reword this guideline to use more inclusive terminology. Maybe just changing the word "headings" to "titles" would be better.

JR: Agree

PP: Maybe sections are named.

CL: 4.1 Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies
... An assistive technology cannot be a user agent on its own - it requires the browser's (or multimedia player's, etc) interpretation of the markup and its implementation of that markup in a DOM or accessibility API. The wording of this guideline can impact what we do in UAAG 2.0 to distinguish the responsibilities of base user agents (browsers, players, etc) from extensions and assistive technologies. Maybe reword this guideline to:

Maximize compatibility with current and future base user agents as well as extensions and assistive technologies - and work with WCAG to provide an updated definition of user agent

CL: UA group is trying to distinguish the relationship between ua's and at's.
... Also AT's can't get info directly.

JR: Like CL's defn of ua.

CL: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value: For all user interface components, the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically determined and programmatically set; and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies.
... This information is made available to the base user agent (browser, player), which then makes the info programmatically set and made programmatically determined (through the DOM or accessibility APIs) for the assistive technology and user agent extensions. I think the AT and browser extensions need to be separated from the base user agent.

Kelly's Comments on WCAG2

KF: Took a look at PERCEIVABLE
... Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need such as large print, Braille, speech,

symbols or simpler language

KF: This seems a bit watered down to me in the sense that it sounds like the purpose of the providing of the alternative text here is largely for conversion. This ignores at minimum the population of folks who for whatever reason do not use pictures but are not doing any kind of conversion. As written this just seems too vague to me.
... Need to think of better wording.
... 1.3.3 Size, Shape, Location: Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of

components. (Level A)

KF: Resize text: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology

JR: Most user agents can do this if you let them.

KF: What is really be asked of from authors is not clear
... 2.2.5 Interruptions: Interruptions, such as updated content, can be postponed or suppressed by the user, except interruptions involving an

emergency. (Level AAA)

KF: Should be at least AA.
... This is fairly widely implemented
... Often authors are allowing this e.g. sports tickers
... Often there are diff options for updating

CL Agree it should be higher

KF: Reading through all these guidelines I’m struck with the general impression that assistive technology is given a higher priority than user agents. This is perhaps somewhat subtle but I guess my point, similar to what I now see Jim said, is that by and large the AT gets the majority of what it presents from the user agent and I’m not sure the guidelines represent this as well as they could.
... Once again seems like ATs put ahead of UAs

CL: I was saying that too

Peter's comments on PERCEIVABLE

PP: Lotsof comments have to do with artificial split between perceivable vs understandable
... Examples blurred right away in 1.1

JR: Does mix up the rationales
... Into the guideline text

PP: Examples prob better images, etc

CL: Takes away from purity of guideline - should be moved to "Understandin" doc

JR: Agree

PP: 1.1.1
... CAPTCHA: If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is


accessed by a person rather than a computer, then text alternatives that

identify and describe the purpose of the non-text content are provided and

alternative forms in different modalities are provided to accommodate



JR: Agree
... Digression on CAPTCHA

PP: = 1.1 Key Terms
... = 1.3.2
... Another perceivable vs. understandable problem...
... Talking aobut meaning


PP: = 1.3.3
... Same problem again.

CL: In general there is some funny wording - some start with noun, some with verb

KF: SHould be these things "alone"

JR: We should keep this in here to call attention to this.

Jim's comments whole doc

1.2.1 Captions (prerecorded)

JR: Wonders if this would actually be covered by taking oguidelines as a whole

3.1.6 A mechanism is available for identifying specific pronunciation of

words where meaning is ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation.

CL: Not sure of AT support for RUBY

Jim: One of the techniques is "adding error text via the DOM" - will the UA

render the information on the screen, and will AT - specifically screen

readers - reveal the inserted DOM text to the user?

(for 3.3.2)

CL: Not sure there is a programmatic way to do this.

PP: No relation for "error"

CL: AT doesn't know where to look.

Summer Availability.

CL: Not here JUly 5th, Aug 2nd

PP: Might not be around in 2nd week of July

KF: Not here July 5th

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/06/14 19:05:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: JR
Inferring ScribeNick: JR
Default Present: KFord, JR, cklaws, [IBM]
Present: KFord JR cklaws [IBM]
Regrets: Jim Allan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007AprJun/0054.html
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jun 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]