See also: IRC log
<jallan> title: UAWG telecon
<KFord> tractbot, start telecon
<KFord> Chair: Jim_Allan
<KFord> Scribe: KFord
Jeanne: Should we include other time zones.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to update F2F with GMT times plus local times. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Update F2F with GMT times plus local times. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-09].
KFord: Any thought of splitting document review into two days?
JBrewer: Jeanne, can you update document with review priorities we wanted to use?
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne, update document review sections with review priorities. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jeanne,
Jeanne: Suggest to use afternoon for issues time.
JAllan: I suggest we put document review to mornings and technical to afternoon.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne update agenda to reflect change in plans. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Update agenda to reflect change in plans. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-09].
Jallan: we don't have keyboard on F2F. Can we power through remianing items.
SHarper had proposal of six rewrites to keyboard override.,
<jallan> 4.1.xx Simon rewrite http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0149.html
Jallan: Jan indicated on mail
list he liked option 1.
... I agreed this was the best.
Sharper: Can someone explain the recognized part?
Jallan: Further explanation, there are black holes where the user agent doesn't know what the key is for, again AJAX and such.
SHarper: This makes sense, my thinkin g was to start with accesskey. But do we need to know more than this. But do we need to do more.
For example, if ctrl+a is pressed, and the user has mapped to ctrl+k, does it really matter.
SHarper: the key was still pressed so the user wants this to be ctrtl+k.
JAN: Restates SHarper explanation, talking about at a higher level, process the keyboard action before anything else happens. Doesn't matter why.
Sharper: My last suggestion was to reflect this.
JAllan: I'm not sure if this is correct but my recollection from last F2F was that scripts, then accesskey then chrome gets keys. Not sure we can do anything about this.
JAN: I see what you are saying but UA could still do this. This would be just a top level mapping.
<jallan> KFord: browser makes choices of where keys go.
<Jan> KF: I need to check but in IE, we always take alt-D...before AJAX
<Jan> KF: I'm not 100% but I know we spent lots of time making this work
JBrewer: IF WaI were to issue guidelines that siad change what you've learned, probably wouldn't fly.
<Jan> Scribe: Jan
SH: JR is right...I'm remapping
at high level...alt D can still work
... Not even saying what needs to pick things up first
... Just a matter of what keys I want to press to activate what's there
JA: While you were talking I wish
Al was here...
... Lots of keyboard mapping ATs out there.
... Maybe we are asking too much of base browsers
JB: Triple A?
JA: THink it's double A
JB: I'm concerned about the
increasing complexity here
... Weren't we also going to check with PF on this
... To make sure we weren't going to collide with them
JA: I remember proposal...but no action item was created
JR: why a collision?
JA: PF working on access key stuff
<KFord> JAN: We were talking about accesskey mapping and we were talking at a higher level than content. We are talking before keys are used for anything.
<scribe> ACTION: JA to Talk to PF about the issue of key remapping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Talk to PF about the issue of key remapping [on Jim Allan - due 2008-10-09].
<KFord> SHarper: Yes, this is what I'm talking about.
SH: Not specific to access keys
JA: But it is specific
<KFord> JAN: I think in UAAG 1 there was a separate checkpoint addressing key mappings for the browser frame. This is a way to combine these.
JR: In old UAAG 1.0...there were weparte checkpoints for remapping keys to chrome and keys to content
<KFord> KFord: I will also talk to one of our developers here.
<KFord> JAllan: I will send to the group and then send to PF. Let's table this for now.
<KFord> KFord, interesting phone echos, cats and other such items.
<KFord> Meeting pauses to review open action items at above URL and close as appropriate.
<KFord> ACTION: Jeanne update agenda to include breaks/lunch. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Update agenda to include breaks/lunch. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-09].
<KFord> kford: Review of action items concludes.
<KFord> Jallan: Now talking about 4.10 and 4.X.
<KFord> JAN: We talked about this before. The new issue here was to drop within and the new thing was to go within groups.
<KFord> ACTION: Jallan review 4.11. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Review 4.11. [on Jim Allan - due 2008-10-09].
<jallan> 4.2.1 All Available: The user can activate, through keyboard input alone, all input device event handlers (including those for pointing devices, voice, etc.) that are explicitly associated with the element designated by the content focus.
<KFord> me Jim are you pasting this?
<KFord> KFord: KFord today I don't know of a user agent that really does all of this. Further explanation.
<KFord> JAN: There are some practical problems with this. Gave example of complex mouse interactions.
KF: When I think about
this...problem today...2 categories...supplemenetal
... User agent lets you get to link with TAB but not the mouse actions...
... ex. imagine I have website...I write some HTML...click here to go to my Free offer
... In script onclick go here...makes a link
... Keyboard user locked out
... Could we argue that UA should allow access to this
... This is already saying this to some extent....but I'm talking about onclick
... But supporting all of the other actions would be too much
JR: So you are saying onclick is best bang for the buck
... Thinking about what's practical
JS: Think we could approach...user agent should "repair"...
<KFord> Jeanne: I think we should could approach this from the approach of repair.
JA: This one is really further expansion of 4.1.1...all functions should be avaialble from the keyboard
<KFord> \JAllan: I think this is just a narrowing of our top level requirement that all functionality be available from the keyboard.
KF: Not realistic
always...because mouse has different interaction model
... But on flip side not saying I want to lock users out
... I'm not a mouse user....
... So what are things you do with mouse that are actually too tedious for keyboard users...maybe answer is don't limit people.
JB: One behaviour is significant
level of muscle weakness/fatigue...becomes tiring to move hands
alot or do a repeated motion...
... Condition can be extremely variable...sometimes even hard to move from mouse to keyboard
... Irony then is it is best to do all with keyboard or all with mouse
... THink this is sometimes misunderstood
KF: OK, but at what point would
you think an AT should come into play vs. base
... e.g. all OS's have mousekeys
... We aren't asking for screen readers for eg.
JB: I think every command function should be interoperable with AT....no question
KF: Assumption that screen readers are mature enough to demand interoperability from UAs
JB: Prob with that this APIs aren't completely in place.
KF: Here's how you might write
this (in extreme): you have to be able to do everything you can
do with mouse with the keyboard or support the platform's AT
... Doesn't have to build it in directly
JB: Isn't it already the expectation that applications should support existing on-board access features such as mousekeys?
KF: Not today...I don't think it's ok to say I don't need to do that because OS has mousekeys
missed JB's clarification
KF: I think if one of 2 ways
works, you've satisfied basic level of access
... Works like "all" make it hard to see what UA should do
JA: I've been enjoying
... Yeah we can fall back to mousekeys...but then we're missing out on effeciency
... Also think there is a host of things...e.g. tooltips or title tags ...which I think are events...can't come up with keyboard...
... I think that hampers keyboard users
... At the same time, it's a crossover issue...WAI ARIA...
... And also WCAG2
KF: OK...bit of tangent...I'm a
fan of ARIA...but it opens lots of new problems...
... ARIA is dangerous...
... In 2 seconds I can call any peice of HTML a new role....
... So it's entirely implicit on author to make things behave like trees....
... And guess what...it won't act like a tree most of the time
JA: Right and outside TAB tree
KF: Don't want to be a fear
... I've made the same points in other places
... But concerns me greatly
... Same thing as custom controls in Win32
JR: Hope is a toolbox like DOJO will do all the work
KF: Not sure about that...I see
examples of companies trying to be on leading edge...doing
their own thing
... Part of me says hey user agent...if that thing was called a tree, make it work...but of course that's not practical\
JA: All these are relevant
... But back to 4.2.1...
<KFord> Jallan: Does our wording work?
<KFord> JAN: I don't think you can just say fire them all.
<KFord> JAN: Gave example of complex mouse events again.
JA: To me...maybe we needto change wording....but onmouseover same as onfocus is more like a technique
<KFord> Jallan: I think saying things like onmouseover should move focus and such needs to be in a technique.
<KFord> JAN: Need some technique to have some wiggle room.
JR: So some instead of all input device handlers
KF: What does the section 508
... Most access guidelines say it like this...but then we redefine somewhere else and say all doesn't mean all.
JB: I'd have to check 508.
JA: If I have some item...more than one action can fire
KF: I can build a whole flyout
... But I would argue that content author has failed already
JA: I see it's endd of our time
JB: Interesting discussion
... Anyone want an action item on 4.1.2?
... Anyone want an action item on 4.2.1?
<KFord> ACTION: kford, JAllan to revisit access [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - kford,
<KFord> ACTION: KF, Jallen to revisit keyboard access and definiton of all and such. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - KF,
<KFord> Title: W3C UAG 10/2/2008
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) Succeeded: s/Sure/ / Succeeded: s/Don't we say that?/Isn't it already the expectation that applications should support existing on-board access features such as mousekeys?/ Succeeded: s/JAllen/JAllan/ Found Scribe: KFord Inferring ScribeNick: KFord Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Scribes: KFord, Jan ScribeNicks: KFord, Jan Default Present: kford, jallan, Jeanne, sharper, Jan, Judy WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Jeanne, sharper, jallan, jan) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ JBrewer Present: JBrewer Jeanne JAllan Sharper Jan KFord Regrets: Mark_Hakkenin WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0148.html Got date from IRC log name: 02 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-ua-minutes.html People with action items: ja jallan jallen jeanne kf kford WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]