<KFord> zakim agenda?

<Eileen> I'm Kim

Review any new proposals sent to list.

<scribe> scribe: Harper_Simon

<scribe> ScribeNick: sharper

UAWG: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/

Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JulSep/0023.html

MH, HS, KP: to explain the 4.7 proposal

<AllanJ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JulSep/0023.html

MH: 4.7 to encompass direct nav and structured nav, re last weeks discussion of KP proposal

Guideline 4.7 Provide structured and direct navigation

4.7.1 Structured Navigation: Forward and backward sequential navigation over important (structural and operable) elements in rendered content is provided. (Level A)

4.7.2 Direct navigation: direct movement to important (structural and operable) elements in rendered content is provided. (Level A).

4.7.3 Direct activation: direct movement to and activation of any operable elements in rendered content is provided. (Level AA)

4.7.4 Configure Set of Important Elements: The user has the option to configure the set of important elements for structured navigation, including by element type (e.g., headers, list items, images). (Level AAA) @@Editor's note: Review the definition of "important elements" @@

4.7.5 Direct navigation and activation keystrokes are discoverable both programmatically and via perceivable labels. (Level A)

Background and Discussion at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JulSep/0023.html

JA: How does this lay over on top of 4.1 is there any duplication?

MH: 4.1.7 - has some relationship to this - complimentary.

GL: wording etc questions

JA: Lets stop at 15 to the hour so we can get into the HTML5

KF: 4.7.3, seems like it also contains the first part of 4.7.2 - both say direct navigation, 4.7.3 with activation.

MH: distinction is directly nav to an active element - 4.7.3 specifically activation so nav and activate are combined in 1 key press.

KF: get the concept, do we need this twice, is it confusing - question for the group

GL: looks like 4.7.3 as written doesn't add anything, because direct commands include a key seq. a UA can comply - no different than defining say ctrl+a and Enter.

MH: difference is that numbers maybe a multi key sequence that would directly activate the element.

GL: don't disagree, but don't think this brings anything.

KP: I think this would work...

GL: nowhere do we already prohibit that kind of thing. dfn. of keyboard commands - maybe overlooks delay between strokes.

KP: from a keyboard point of view fewer are better, problem when you can't put strokes together.

JA: Example?

<Greg> I suggest we make sure the definition of keyboard command is explicit that there can be no enforced wait in the middle of any sequence, and no having to read.

KP: Firefox, type number and hit enter (or not - config). If there is a wait for a keystroke sequence to resolve (say dialogue) then how do you know if there are more strokes coming to activate something else?

GL: address this by making sure dfn in glossary includes wording that there can be no enforced wait in the middle.
... one shouldn't need to get feedback in the middle of the stroke sequence - ie can do alt+F,O, so no wait is required but the sequence type ahead is enacted

<Greg> If the platform doesn't provide typeahead, I would not expect the UA to add it. (If you want an accessible UA, run one on an accessible OS.)

JA: 4.1.4 is separate activation from action

<Greg> But if the platform supports typeahead, the UA should support it.

GL: 4.7.3, not required, but included in the best practices

<Greg> Proposal to remove 4.7.3 as separate SC, instead incorporate it into the best practices as a recommendation that the UA allow the user to avoid having to enter an extra keystroke to activate the element they are navigating to.

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-UAAG20-20090723/#def-configure

<Greg> We need to clarify, does "the user has an option to" also require that the use has the option not to?

<Greg> For example, if we say "the user has the option to be able to navigate via the keyboard", we wouldn't want that to imply that the user MUST have an option to disable keyboard navigation.

ISSUE: Review "the user has the option to be able to navigate via the keyboard"

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-38 - Review "the user has the option to be able to navigate via the keyboard" ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/38/edit .

<Greg> In 4.7.1, 1. "over" - sounds like skipping over, so change to "through" or "between"

GL: 4.7.1 use of word 'over'; to GL means skip

KP switch over to 'to'

RESOLUTION: switch over to 'to'

<Greg> 4.7 use of "important" makes it not subjective rather than objectively measurable.

ISSUE: need to work on the definition of 'important' so it can be used as an objective measure.

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-39 - Need to work on the definition of 'important' so it can be used as an objective measure. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/39/edit .

<Greg> Is there any example where it's OK for the UA to not provide keyboard navigation to an enabled element?

<Greg> 3. "structural and" can you provide examples where you want to navigate to structural elements that aren't interactive? Would it be something like using tab to navigate to a group of radio buttons, and the focus is put on whichever radio button in that group last had the focus.

<Greg> 4. "operable" - we already have the terms "enabled" and "interactive"

JA: we need to take this to the list and thrash it out some more.

HTML 5 and UAAG review - http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

<AllanJ> SH: issues with Canvas and Video and small

MH: issues with Canvas and its use for UIs

<AllanJ> MH: what is difference between UA and web-app functioning as a runtime desktop app

<AllanJ> ...how is user to know?

<Eileen> (Kim) q+

<AllanJ> SH: questions about who is responsible for making an application accessible

KF: 508 doesn't mean that it has to be accessible - it just has to state this - and the federal purchasing office has to decide.
... 508 in revision

JA: Problems around provision of bespoke accessibility apis.

KF: all manner of HTML5 concerns.
... accessibility still expects and is tuned toward web pages - more to web applications - UI model is very different.
... so much more that must happen, not clearly defined.

JA: 508 distinction between web and applications is now removed, now mashed together.

<AllanJ> DHTML Style Guide Working Group http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide

<KFord> MSDN keyboard article on keyboard design. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms971323.aspx

<Greg> Microsoft Windows 95 Keyboard Guide - http://tinyurl.com/nsbo7o

<AllanJ> KP: many inconsistencies with common practice keystrokes in web UI

<AllanJ> MH: authors creating 'new' widgets and writing unique keyboard behavior/metaphor

<AllanJ> MH: genie is out of bottle

KF: tree example, expect widget semantics - but not really the case in web apps.
... tool kits is where the keyboard access needs to be added.

JA: extensibility model in HTML5 is adhoc - adhoc solutions will bubble up with no real spec.
... We need to generate issues with HTML5 for UAs

<mth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2009Jul/

<scribe> ACTION: AllanJ to 'interface with PF to find out what they are doing HTML5 wise so we don't duplicate work.' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AllanJ

<KFord> MSDN keyboard article on keyboard design. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms971323.aspxI think you can see the archives of PF mail for members at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/feed.rss

<AllanJ> ACTION: JA to review html5 for UA behavior [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Review html5 for UA behavior [on Jim Allan - due 2009-08-06].

<AllanJ> ACTION: HS to review forms in HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - Review forms in HTML5 [on Henny Swan - due 2009-08-06].

<AllanJ> ACTION: KF to review user interaction in HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Review user interaction in HTML5 [on Kelly Ford - due 2009-08-06].

<AllanJ> ACTION: MH to review video, audio, image, media in HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-216 - Review video, audio, image, media in HTML5 [on Markku Hakkinen - due 2009-08-06].

action sharper Section 3 structure

<trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - Section 3 structure [on Simon Harper - due 2009-08-06].

<AllanJ> ACTION: KP to review user interaction for keyboard in HTML 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - Review user interaction for keyboard in HTML 5 [on Kimberly Patch - due 2009-08-06].

<scribe> ACTION: SH to review Section 3 structure of HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - SH

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. sharper, shayes)

<scribe> ACTION: sharper to review Section 3 structure of HTML5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-219 - Review Section 3 structure of HTML5 [on Simon Harper - due 2009-08-06].

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/no/not/
Found Scribe: Harper_Simon
Found ScribeNick: sharper
Default Present: kford, AllanJ, sharper, +1.617.435.aaaa, Henny, Greg, Mark_Hakkinen, mth, +1.617.435.aacc
Present: Allan_James_(JA-AllanJ) Harper_Simon_(SH-sharper) Ford_Kelly_(KF-KFord) Patch_Kim (KP-Eileen) Swan_Henny (HS-Henny) Lowney_Greg (GL-Greg) Hakkinen_Mark (MH-mth)
Regrets: Poehlman_David_(DP) Rosmaita_Gregory_(GR) Spellman_Jeanne_(JS-jeanne)

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/2009JulSep/0022.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Jul 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: allanj hs ja kf kp mh sh sharper

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.