17:42:20 RRSAgent has joined #ua 17:42:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc 17:42:29 rrsagent, set log public 17:43:00 regrets+ Gregory_Rosmaita 17:44:41 jeanne has left #ua 17:44:50 jeanne has joined #ua 17:44:50 AllanJ has joined #ua 17:45:49 meeting: WAI_UAWG 17:46:10 chair: Jim Allan & Judy Brewer 17:47:50 rrsagent, make minutes 17:47:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html jeanne 17:51:26 but actually if there should be even this brief content that's not there, just kind of boilplate text. 17:53:42 Love all the different permission issues with technology. 17:57:28 Jan has joined #ua 17:58:45 zakim, code? 17:58:45 sorry, jeanne, I don't know what conference this is 17:59:37 sharper has joined #ua 17:59:38 zakim, this is WAI_UAWG 17:59:38 ok, jeanne; that matches WAI_UAWG()2:00PM 17:59:47 zakim, this will be wai_ 17:59:47 ok, AllanJ, I see WAI_UAWG()2:00PM already started 17:59:48 zakim, code 17:59:49 I don't understand 'code', jeanne 17:59:53 zakim, code? 17:59:53 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jeanne 18:00:23 +??P3 18:00:48 +??P5 18:00:56 zakim, ??P3 is really Jan 18:00:58 +Jan; got it 18:01:04 +Jeanne 18:01:09 zakim, ??P5 is really Simon 18:01:09 +Simon; got it 18:01:28 Judy has joined #ua 18:01:36 zakim, code? 18:01:36 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Judy 18:02:20 +Mark_Hakkinen 18:02:48 +Judy 18:03:37 +??P11 18:04:30 zakim, who's here? 18:04:30 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Jim_Allan, Jan, Simon, Jeanne, Mark_Hakkinen, Judy, ??P11 18:04:32 On IRC I see Judy, sharper, Jan, AllanJ, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, KFord 18:04:36 zakim, ??P11 is really Alan Cantor 18:04:36 I don't understand '??P11 is really Alan Cantor', AllanJ 18:04:59 zakim, [Microsoft] is really Kelly_Ford 18:04:59 +Kelly_Ford; got it 18:05:38 zakim, ??P11 is really Alan_Cantor 18:05:38 +Alan_Cantor; got it 18:06:20 Alan has joined #ua 18:06:38 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/scribing.html 18:07:03 testing... 18:09:23 Scribe: Jan 18:10:32 Topic: Action item review: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard shortcuts 18:10:38 JA: Simon did send 18:10:49 JB: I had action to reply but haven't yet 18:10:59 JB: First thanks for them 18:11:33 JB: One thought...Jim reminded us when he got back that 4.1.1 to 4.1.12 are actually success criteria 18:12:01 JB: In other docs we havne't put rationales for this lvel...in other docs this went in "understanding" docs 18:12:17 JB: But at moment that's noit on our committed deliverables list 18:12:42 -Mark_Hakkinen 18:13:00 JB: Another concern is that while this is really good starter text but would need more peoples' time to polish 18:13:30 JB:So we are kind of reluctant to take on this additional work... 18:13:32 +Mark_Hakkinen 18:13:46 JB: Also you suggested litterature references.... 18:14:17 JB: Just a couple of concerns...1. external link persistence is an issue from a technical report (TR).... 18:15:00 JB: also an ISO JTC group I was on tried this a few years back and had trouble with it 18:15:13 JB: Am I clear? 18:16:20 SH: Only thing I thought - sent an Email - with re: rationale: I'm happy to go along with it...but I worry that we will be asking developers to do things and tonot have rationale might hinder take up of rules 18:16:30 SH: But I understand time constraints 18:16:39 SH: Benefits as well 18:17:04 JB: We did agree with that...esp. wrt UAAG1 not getting as much uptake 18:18:06 JB: Concern was actually that rationales might not be consistent. Some are benefit, some are barrier....our experience in other groups is almost to wqrite these by formula 18:18:25 JB: And with regard to links, it should be as concise as possible 18:19:10 JB: Anyhow there was pretty stong support in last mtg of having these avaiable but there was just concern about scope. 18:19:32 JB: Also reminder that group needs to publish on heartbeat schedule 18:19:48 SH: I'm fine to go along 18:19:58 JB: Other people ok? 18:20:08 JB: We could revisit it later? 18:20:33 JB: We do specifically want to save the text for later use 18:20:44 JA: Agree that saving text is a great idea 18:21:27 Action JS: Save the potential rationales written by SH 18:21:28 ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG 18:21:38 :) 18:21:52 AC: We should think about best formula for writing these 18:22:11 rrsagent, action- 2 18:22:39 JB: Maybe we can select several different guidelines and then try the various formats...barriers, benefits, etc. 18:22:56 action:JS will set up tracking system for UAWG 18:23:04 JB: I might lean towards "barrier-reduction" rather than "make it nice" 18:23:52 JB: Bunch of considerations 18:24:34 Topic: JA, JB, JS to figure a time & place to discuss a bunch of editorial 18:24:52 Topic: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for redundancy ??? 18:25:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0036.html 18:25:40 JA: We want to keep 4.1.1 unchanged, remove 4.1.7 and reword 4.1.6 18:25:58 JA: Decide now? 18:26:08 JB: OK if will be short discussion? 18:26:22 KF: "Processed content" defined? 18:28:01 JR: Ties into whole chrome/content display discussion 18:28:15 Topic: Jan - propose rewrite for 4.1.5 and next 4.1.x 18:28:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0018.html 18:29:07 JA: will come back to this 18:29:14 Topic: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting cascade issues... 18:29:26 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0024.html 18:30:47 JR: Action item on precedence of keyboard processing. JR thinks we can simplify by having one SC (we previously had 2) 18:31:00 ... that states the preferred order. 18:31:10 JA: Let's flag for follow-up 18:31:16 KF: I have some concerns 18:31:31 Topic: Jeanne - build new streamlined framework for 4.1.* 18:31:37 JS: Yes I did 18:31:44 Topic: Jeanne - propose rewrite for Section 4.1.8 18:31:55 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080714.html 18:32:12 JS: Will take some discussion as well 18:32:20 JA: Then... 18:32:57 JA: Would like to hold off on discussing"Schedule for publication of next draft." 18:33:12 JA: Let's take up 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 18:33:32 Topic: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for redundancy ??? 18:33:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0036.html 18:34:25 www.w3.org/tr/uaag2 18:34:50 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080714.html 18:35:29 JB: Reads: 4.1.1 Keyboard Operation: All functionality can be operated via the keyboard using sequential and/or direct keyboard commands that do not require specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints (e.g., free hand drawing). This does not forbid and should not... 18:35:31 ...discourage providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation. 18:36:27 JA: So as part of the review I did with JR, we decided this is ok 18:37:00 JB: THink "provisionally OK" should be a category 18:37:09 JB: Provisionally yes 18:37:15 KF: Provisionally yes 18:37:17 JA: OK 18:37:32 JR, SH, JS: Provisionally yes 18:37:44 AC: COuld we simplify? 18:37:52 JB: I agree 18:38:40 KF: I think we drill to far down quickly....I can see lots of places where simplification needed 18:38:44 JB: Good point 18:38:46 AC: OK 18:39:05 JA: OK we can wordsmith after 4.1 18:39:37 JB: Next is to remove: 4.1.6 Standard Text Area Conventions: Views that render text support the standard text area conventions for the platform including, but not necessarily limited to: character keys, backspace/delete, insert, "arrow" key navigation (e.g., "caret" browsing), page up/page down, navigate to start/end, navigate by paragraph, shift-to-select mechanism, etc. 18:40:12 OOPS 18:40:36 JA: Something different 18:41:36 JA: Clarifies that we want to remove 4.1.7 and rewording 4.1.6 18:42:35 KF: So sentence in 4.1.1 pretty abstract... 18:43:07 KF: So supplemental info... 18:43:23 KF: I would try to move stuff in 4.1.7 up into 4.1.1 18:43:27 AC: Can't agree 18:43:58 AC: This is actually touching on something interesting....conventions 18:44:44 AC: Reversability important 18:45:09 KF: Should merge first then word smith down 18:45:27 http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#principle-follow-specs 18:45:46 JR: there is another guideline 1.1, observe operating environment conventions 18:46:05 ... platform, mobile phone, etc. 18:46:33 KF: 4.1.1 needs a semblance of an example 18:46:42 JB: Gets back into SH's need for rationales 18:47:00 JB: I actually think this may be the worst section of the doc 18:47:06 zakim, who's making noise? 18:47:15 JB: In terms of trying to sort things out 18:47:18 jeanne, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kelly_Ford (17%), Mark_Hakkinen (3%), Judy (86%) 18:47:37 JB: I've never seen a really good capture of keyboard 18:48:02 JB: May be that we need rationles for this section 18:48:21 KF: 4.1.1 says all functionality can be operated from keyboard... 18:48:40 KF: 4.1.7 is what really means by all 18:49:06 AC: It's a clarification...a positive example to go with negative one.... 18:49:29 The user can, through keyboard input alone, navigate to and operate all of the functions included in the user interface (e.g., navigating and selecting content within views, operating the user interface "chrome", installing and configuring the user agent, and accessing documentation), except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not... 18:49:31 ...just the endpoints (e.g. freeform drawing). 18:50:34 @@(e.g., navigating and selecting content within views, operating the user interface "chrome", installing and configuring the user agent, and accessing documentation)@@ 18:51:14 All functionality can be operated via the keyboard @@(e.g., navigating and selecting content within views, operating the user interface "chrome", installing and configuring the user agent, and accessing documentation)@@ 18:51:16 using sequential and/or direct keyboard commands that do not require specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints (e.g., free hand drawing). This does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation. 18:51:43 JB: Don't like Chrome 18:52:52 JR: Can say controls or something 18:53:28 judy: not simply that i don't like it; i note that we're not using it consistently nor correctly and it seems to add to the jargon barrier not only for non-developer audiences but even for some developer audiences. 18:54:13 JR: As an aside we have reworded 4.1.1 a lot...very terse....and almost back where we started 18:54:31 that was JA 18:54:40 JA: We're spinning wheels 18:54:57 KF: But sometimes this is healthy because helps find comfort level 18:55:10 JA: Other conflict is how terse to make things 18:55:27 JA: Worry about being too prescriptive then too terse 18:56:12 JB: Well I'm having a concern that last time we didn't even get to the end of 4.1.12.\ 18:57:21 JB: So agenda....we've gone through and are now returning 18:57:39 JA: I wan't here last week, not sure what we got through 18:58:08 JB: I do not believe we made it through with detailed discussion 18:58:37 JS: How much change to 4.1.11 and 4.1.12? JS? 18:58:46 that was JB 18:59:01 JS: No change by me except small grammar fix 18:59:23 JA: So we were thrashing on 4.1.1... 19:00:18 Action KF: Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together 19:00:50 Note to kfored, look at older wording from log here. 19:01:17 JA: Next part is rewording of 4.1.6 19:01:38 JA: 4.1.6 was about standard text conventions 19:02:42 JA: Our proposed wording is: 4.1.6 Caret Navigation: The user can use the keyboard to navigate to and 19:02:44 select characters in any text in the processed content. 19:03:17 KF: 2 peices of general feedback...this would only be of viewport to be more clear 19:03:36 KF: And defining "processed content" 19:04:26 JR: this is exactly the reason we need the separation between chrome and content. 19:05:13 JR: THis is exactly why we need chrome/content display split 19:05:49 JR. The user can use the keyboard to navigate to and 19:05:51 select characters any text in the xxx (viewport, content display, processed content, 19:05:53 etc.) 19:05:55 JB: Would this split 4.1? 19:06:03 JR: No we just need to be clear 19:06:36 JS: Big issue...leaning towards dividing adifferent way...into who's responsible for developing it 19:07:32 KF: Maybe I"m just showing my bias....browser is at least two things "chrome" and other is "web content"....and I want our document it reflect that 19:07:51 KF: So want all UA's to implement caret browsing? 19:07:53 JA: Right 19:08:41 JB: How is this different than 4.1.1? 19:08:54 JA: Applies to user interface 19:09:11 JB: I think split only applies to some checkpoints 19:09:55 JB: If 4.1.1 and 4.1.6 are parallel,,,maybe we need to make that very clear 19:10:10 JB: So they can't be mistaken for smae thing 19:10:32 Maybe 4.1.6 needs to come up to the top 19:11:16 AC: Hard to imagine not drawing really clear distinction between user interface and content...some SC's can be collapsed togther... 19:11:47 AC: But I think we should actually repeat wording in UI vs. content display 19:12:27 JS: But as more apps come on line we are backing ourself into corner with this distniction 19:12:36 JR: I don't agree. 19:13:05 ... Al G. made a comment. on 7/11 about this issue 19:13:50 ... imagine, viewer with video running using a webbased external viewer SMIL, etc. 19:14:28 ... there are things that are different from developer content (player) and author content (actual movie with caption) 19:14:56 ... the player has a different set of criteria (keyboard accessibility, accessible help) 19:15:07 ... the movie must follow WCAG. 19:15:34 ... can't tell from the tags, could all be html, even in the chrome could be html 19:16:33 KF: Call it what you will...but caret browsing is going to apply to web content... 19:16:50 KF: Kind of do that with processed content 19:17:22 KF: In web page if I write "File" I want to select that, but dowbt need to select "File" in menu 19:17:31 KF: Very different from UI 19:18:08 KF: Explicit aims trying to acheive need to be clear 19:18:23 JA: As necessary... 19:19:11 JA: Thinking back to comment earlier, Flash in web page, does user agent need to provide caret browsing... 19:19:35 JA: Gives examples of embedded user agents 19:19:49 q+ 19:19:55 KF: I don't disagree..we need to very explicit 19:20:29 JB: Process comment....feel like I'm getting picture of why we are going in circles.... 19:20:42 JB: We don't have well developed understanding of the need. 19:21:05 JB: Trying to discuss on level of wording...without shared understanding 19:21:52 JB: People need to the group can be left out when shared understanding is not explicit 19:22:20 JB: Maybe between now and next week, several people can attempt to write rationales 19:23:00 JB: Reaction? 19:23:05 JR: will be part of group 19:23:09 JR: I would join that group. 19:23:21 JA: Me too 19:24:46 SH: As a newbie everything seems to come back to 4.1.1 which is very comprhensive 19:25:39 SH: Also 4.1.5, 4.6., 4.1.7, .11 and .12 are subclasses of 4.1.1 19:25:50 JB: Interesting observations 19:26:07 JB: THis was a very tough part of TEITAC as well 19:26:50 JB: I'm still not satisfied with what we have 19:27:01 JB: Maybe 4 or 5 essential things... 19:27:12 JB: So we are almost out of time 19:28:07 JS: Would like to join 19:28:22 JA: Somewhere along the way principles have been lost 19:28:39 KF: I'd be willing to help too 19:29:07 Action: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the checkpoints. 19:29:28 KF: Have to go 19:29:38 -Kelly_Ford 19:30:07 -Mark_Hakkinen 19:30:09 -Simon 19:30:23 JA: Next week we'll do the next draft schedule first 19:31:35 -Judy 19:31:36 -Jim_Allan 19:31:36 -Alan_Cantor 19:31:37 -Jeanne 19:31:47 -Jan 19:31:48 WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has ended 19:31:50 Attendees were Jim_Allan, Jan, Jeanne, Simon, Mark_Hakkinen, Judy, Kelly_Ford, Alan_Cantor 19:33:04 rrsagent, what are the action items? 19:33:04 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-actions.rdf : 19:33:04 ACTION: JS to Save the potential rationales written by SH [1] 19:33:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T18-21-27 19:33:04 ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [3] 19:33:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T18-22-56 19:33:04 ACTION: KF to Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together [4] 19:33:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T19-00-18 19:33:04 ACTION: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the checkpoints. [5] 19:33:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T19-29-07 19:38:46 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:38:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html Jan 19:38:53 RRSAgent, set logs public 19:38:58 Zakim, bye 19:38:58 Zakim has left #ua 19:39:04 RRSAgent, bye 19:39:04 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-actions.rdf : 19:39:04 ACTION: JS to Save the potential rationales written by SH [1] 19:39:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T18-21-27 19:39:04 ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [3] 19:39:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T18-22-56 19:39:04 ACTION: KF to Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together [4] 19:39:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T19-00-18 19:39:04 ACTION: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the checkpoints. [5] 19:39:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-irc#T19-29-07