IRC log of ua on 2008-07-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

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