See also: IRC log
<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
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]
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
JB: No change
JB: No change
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?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: [Microsoft], Jeanne, Judy Present: [Microsoft] Jeanne Judy Kelly_Ford Simon_Harper Jan_Richards Judy_Brewer Mark_Hakkinen Jeanne_Spellman Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0004.html Got date from IRC log name: 03 Jul 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-ua-minutes.html People with action items: js mh sh WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]