WAI-UA -- 03 Jul 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Jan

All; Introductions

Including new members Simon Harper and Mark Hakkinen.

JB: Jim Allan is on vacation...way offline

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0004.html

JS: This doc (http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080702.html)...
... Comes from me trying to follow what's going on...so I've brought it all together into one document
... Once I did it, it seems like a useful thing to share
... So now looks different than usual
... Ifyou look at it...took allgls in 4.1
... Each has existing text and then proposed text
... Tried to put proposals in as Notes for reference purposes
... Let's start at 4.1...we were missing an introduction

KF: Comment...how specific...before rattling off populations...needs to summarize all users...
... Say"accomodating a wide range of users that includes..."

JR: No other intros...but ok...many musts.

JB: Should not be ad libbing structure of doc

JR: ATAG has rationale

JB: Some people may try and grab guideline level text as normative even if we say its not
... Can we move this somewhere else

JR: Can we reuse another structur...do we need it ? Or can it be rationale?

JS: Yes
... I added because of difficulties JB was having in TEITAC...that's where I was coming from...I'm not attached to it

JB: Reason for doing=Rationale
... Looking at ATAG...
... Another reason for being conservative here is that we need it all throgu UAAG2
... Looking at wcag2...they have principle, guideline and success criteria
... Principle, guideline very terse
... They handle rationale by passing person to Understanding doc

SH: Looks like a defintion
... Less like rationale

JB: Think rationale comes through and defintiion is there too
... Each of 3 sentences is different

SH: Def section?

JB: Yes a glossary
... I'm wondering about "most universal" construct

SH: Can I volunteer to rewrite?

JB: Just a sec...
... Do we want rationale under each.

KF: Think we do want "Rationale"

MH: I like rationale there.short and sweet
... Like ATAG

JB: Thought exercise...on "rationale" if we skim rest of UAAG2 draft...

JR: I think so.

JB: Let's just look....
... Picking...3.6

JR: Think we can

JB: 4.3...

SH: Pragmatically...if we can't create rationale...there is a prob

JB: Right...apologize for playing devil's advocate
... Just worried by how many meetings would be required

MH: How many people?

JB: Participation hasn't stabilized.
... Prob. 7-8 core by sept

MH: I have some level of energy for this

SH: Maybe let's see how it works for keyboard

JR: We can borrow a lot from ATAG

JB: I appreicate enthusiamsm from Simon and Mark...do wyou want to look at drafting...incl importing from ATAG.

SH: Maybe lets's do 1.2, 2.2, 3....

JB: Good idea
... For approach let's do as concisely as possible
... So JS if you feel anything will be lost...maybe propose way of moving them back

JS: THink its all there below...I was just trying to make it clear

JB: So nothing more to talk about re: 4.1 paragraph

4.1.1

JB: Existing, Proposed,...

<Judy> ACTION: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard shortcuts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<Judy> ACTION: MH draft rational text for each x.1 guideline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html#action02]

JR: Just wants to make sure "functionality" is clear enough

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/

JB: We seem ok with Jeanne's proposal

<scribe> ACTION: JS to To record previous example "resizing window" in techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html#action03]

4.1.2

JS: Only title change

JB: Some requirements moving away from titles
... So came to "Documentation of Precedence of Keystroke Processing"
... And another requirement had the same title

JB, JR: DDiscuss why there are 2 and why document is higher priority

JS: Wondering where it should be documented

JB: TEITAC had lots of dscussion on where things should be documented
... I recall I was on calls with KF where progress was made
... JS had some language..."prominent in the documentation"
... Maybe we could use the same wording...in the same place

JS: So co-located with list of shortcut keys

JR: Agreed

JB: Totle ok
... Ttle ok

4.1.3

JB: No change

4.1.4

JB: No change

4.1.5

JB: Available keystrokes...
... So Jeanne tried to bring in some other stuff.

KF: Editorial..."both"

JR: Quite different than it was.

JS: Right

JB: We will come back to title

JR: Try to avoid "content"

<KFord> Jan raised concerns over recognized.

<KFord> 4.5 rewritten to 4.1.5 Available Keyboard Shortcuts: The user can always determine available keyboard shortcuts by all of the following:

<KFord> list of 3 items

<KFord> � (a) A user setting in which keyboard shortcuts for currently available controls are visually displayed (e.g. an underlined letter or inclusion in a user

<KFord> interface menu).

<KFord> � (b) If a keyboard shortcut exists for a component, then it is available programmatically to assistive technology.

<KFord> � (c) A list of all keyboard shortcuts that is prominent in the documentation.

<KFord> list end

<KFord> JB: two concerns.

<KFord> people thinking keyboard shortucts in content when we meant chrome.

<KFord> JB explained user interface keyboard provision in response from Simon.

<KFord> JB: 4.15 is the ability of the user to determine keyboard shortcuts in the way that works best for the way they are accessing the user agent e.g. screen reader, looking at product and such.

<KFord> JB clarifying 4.1.5 and 4.1.7.

<KFord> JAN expressed opinion that current proposal has lost key content.

<KFord> Talk about meeting logistics. Can we meet for 90 minutes to make progress?

<KFord> Anyone have a conflict going to 90 minutes asked by JB?

<KFord> Simon expressed desire to start early verssu going late.

<KFord> Simon willing to give the later time a chance.

<KFord> JB: Going to try 90 minutes

<KFord> JB: can we go 15 minutes past the hour.

<KFord> JB: asked if group can go for 15 minutes.

<KFord> KFord not able to but group will continue.

<jeanne> scribe nick: jeanne

<jeanne> ACTION: JS will write a new guideline that includes the requirements for content display of keyboard shortcuts. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<jeanne> JB: is there a reason that the word "component" is used rather than User Interface Application Controls?

<jeanne> JR: the length of the phrase. That was why we went toward "chrome" because that was recognized in the industry.

<jeanne> SH: Let's drop the phrase "for a component" so it reads, If a keyboard shortcut exists, then it is available programmatically to assitive technology".

<jeanne> JB: Flag 4.1.5 (c) for more discussion. JB is concerned that "prominent" may not be sufficient.

<Judy> ACTION: JS draft a content-oriented keyboard shortcut proposal and check w/ Jan [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<jeanne> present?

- DRAFT -

WAI-UA

03 Jul 2008

Attendees

Contents

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.1.5

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output