IRC log of ua on 2009-09-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:42:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
16:42:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:43:02 [AllanJ]
zakim, this will be wai_u
16:43:02 [Zakim]
ok, AllanJ; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
16:43:20 [AllanJ]
rrsagent, set logs public
16:49:16 [iheni]
iheni has joined #ua
16:49:21 [iheni]
iheni has left #ua
16:49:24 [iheni]
iheni has joined #ua
16:51:08 [AllanJ]
trackbot, start meeting
16:51:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:51:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
16:51:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
16:51:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16:51:13 [trackbot]
Date: 10 September 2009
16:51:38 [AllanJ]
chair: Jim_Allan
16:52:27 [AllanJ]
Agenda+ Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)? Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face
16:52:50 [AllanJ]
zakim, remove item 1
16:52:50 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)? Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face, dropped
16:53:07 [AllanJ]
Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face
16:53:20 [mth]
mth has joined #ua
16:53:21 [AllanJ]
Agenda+ Review & Open Discussion UAAG20 Guideline 5
16:53:36 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #ua
16:54:10 [AllanJ]
Agenda+ Review survey at
16:54:36 [AllanJ]
zakim, save agena
16:54:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'save agena', AllanJ
16:54:53 [AllanJ]
zakim, save agenda
16:54:59 [Zakim]
ok, AllanJ, the agenda has been written to
16:56:03 [kford]
kford has joined #ua
16:57:02 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
16:57:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.883.aaaa
16:57:55 [kford]
zakim, 425883 is kford
16:57:55 [Zakim]
sorry, kford, I do not recognize a party named '425883'
16:58:23 [kford]
zakim, 425.883.aaaa is kford
16:58:23 [Zakim]
sorry, kford, I do not recognize a party named '425.883.aaaa'
16:58:41 [kford]
zakim 1.425.883.aaaa is kford
16:58:51 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [kford]
trackbot, start meeting
17:00:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
17:00:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM already started
17:00:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
17:00:30 [trackbot]
Date: 10 September 2009
17:00:54 [kford]
Chair: Jim_allan
17:01:40 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [Greg]
Greg has joined #ua
17:03:03 [Zakim]
17:03:14 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [jeanne]
zakim, agenda?
17:04:38 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
17:04:39 [Zakim]
2. Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face [from AllanJ]
17:04:40 [Zakim]
3. Review & Open Discussion UAAG20 Guideline 5 [from AllanJ]
17:04:41 [Zakim]
4. Review survey at [from AllanJ]
17:04:50 [KimPatch]
KimPatch has joined #ua
17:04:51 [Zakim]
17:05:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.325.aabb
17:06:15 [AllanJ]
regrets: JanRichards, SimonHarper
17:06:17 [Zakim]
17:06:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.895.aacc
17:06:34 [jeanne]
zakim, P7 is Mark
17:06:34 [Zakim]
sorry, jeanne, I do not recognize a party named 'P7'
17:07:00 [jeanne]
zakim, ??P7 is really MTH
17:07:00 [Zakim]
+MTH; got it
17:07:07 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
17:07:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.425.883.aaaa, Jeanne, MTH, AllanJ, +1.617.325.aabb, +1.425.895.aacc
17:07:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see KimPatch, Greg, kford, jeanne, mth, iheni, RRSAgent, Zakim, AllanJ, trackbot
17:07:33 [Zakim]
17:09:33 [AllanJ]
regrets +DavidTseng
17:09:46 [AllanJ]
WCAG20 Techniques
17:10:13 [AllanJ]
ATAG Techniques
17:10:38 [AllanJ]
UAAG10 Techniques
17:11:31 [KimPatch]
Jean: when WCAG did their techniques they went with a different-- understanding, examples, testing procedures, resources, I'd like to propose that we also looked at restructuring our techniques document for information in it
17:12:47 [KimPatch]
Greg: it makes it easier when someone is trying to understand a piece to have everything in one place -- a restatement of guidelines, what's the benefit, techniques for testing, not sure about the different formats
17:13:03 [KimPatch]
Jim: at least we would have a different model to go by
17:13:28 [KimPatch]
Jean: the content for the working group is a big deal and hard to do
17:14:01 [KimPatch]
Henny: good idea
17:15:35 [KimPatch]
Jim: face-to-face agenda
17:16:19 [KimPatch]
Kelly: two, three, four will take the longest
17:16:58 [KimPatch]
Jim: write comments to the list, will finalize the agenda and get it out
17:17:34 [KimPatch]
Jim: we've never quite got to principal five, which is ensure that the user interface is understandable, goal for today is to review that and see if we have any immediate issues
17:18:04 [KimPatch]
Jim: 5.1 help users avoid unnecessary messages
17:18:10 [Greg]
While it’s important, I don’t see “avoiding unnecessary messages” as making the UI “understandable”.
17:19:48 [KimPatch]
Jim: let the user change -- override what the author set
17:21:13 [KimPatch]
Kelly: good idea in one sense but the whole aria thing is more of a technique-- aria has the concept of politeness
17:21:44 [Zakim]
17:21:45 [mth]
mth has left #ua
17:22:15 [KimPatch]
Kelly: is this already covered -- you're supposed to respect all the politeness levels shouldn't that come in from aria?
17:23:02 [KimPatch]
Kelly: does the user agent have to support aria to comply with our guidelines?
17:23:42 [KimPatch]
Kelly: let's say a year from now there's another great accessibility thing -- a technique might but a guideline can't reference a specific technology like this
17:24:28 [KimPatch]
Henny: In WCAG, you don't reference specific technologies
17:26:25 [mth]
mth has joined #ua
17:26:48 [KimPatch]
Kelly: should we 86 this one
17:27:35 [Zakim]
17:27:38 [KimPatch]
Kelly: how do I know what I've satisfied this criteria?
17:28:11 [KimPatch]
Greg: there's the issue of text messages as opposed to a more general form of alerts or notifications
17:28:26 [jeanne]
q+ to say that it appears to be more of a usability issue than an accessibility issue.
17:28:41 [KimPatch]
Greg: it's not clear whether were talking about only notifications that will take the focus, include notifications that will appear in a separate window but do not change the focus
17:28:54 [KimPatch]
Mark: I think we updated that in the definition
17:29:22 [KimPatch]
Jim: we talked about JavaScript alerts, aria is part of that to as to whether the focus is going to change, that might be another instance of that
17:29:49 [jeanne]
ack j
17:29:49 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say that it appears to be more of a usability issue than an accessibility issue.
17:30:50 [KimPatch]
Kelly: one of the things that's happening in user agent development -- on one hand you could argue this is supposed to help you avoid things that interrupt you, but in some ways it's actually hurting accessibility
17:31:42 [KimPatch]
Kelly: Internet Explorer the information bar -- the whole point is to stop making alerts be modal, but for accessibility it's better to take the focus
17:32:37 [KimPatch]
Kelly: I don't want to single out IE. we needed different guidelines, I think this guideline is almost missing the actual serious problem that's starting to happen
17:33:10 [KimPatch]
Kelly: the subtle notifications that are being presented have a greater opportunity to be missed for accessibility purposes
17:33:30 [KimPatch]
Jim: change this so not to ignore but to modify
17:34:00 [mth]
17:34:18 [KimPatch]
Jim: the user has the option to change the way these things are rendered -- could be low priority thing turn those off, don't bother me, or high-priority jump up and down
17:34:36 [mth]
17:34:43 [KimPatch]
Kelly: hard to quantify, but maybe at a priority two it's OK
17:35:17 [KimPatch]
Jim: cell phone use -- these sort of alerts and warnings are these issues on cell phones also
17:35:43 [KimPatch]
usually just yes no prompts
17:35:51 [AllanJ]
action kford to rewrite 5.1.1 to be user has option to change rendering of messages from UA and content
17:35:51 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - kford
17:36:01 [KimPatch]
Kelly: usually very limited -- different experience
17:36:10 [AllanJ]
action kellyford to rewrite 5.1.1 to be user has option to change rendering of messages from UA and content
17:36:10 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - kellyford
17:37:44 [KimPatch]
Jim: 5.2 helped the users avoid mistakes -- usually involves form submission
17:38:30 [KimPatch]
Kelly: interesting concept and not a bad idea but I think we should lower it to a P3
17:39:25 [KimPatch]
Greg: context -- if object is to help user avoid mistakes a number of other things that would fit into this category-- that may change the way we think about this
17:39:40 [Greg]
Here's from ISO 9241-171:
17:39:48 [Greg]
8.4.3 Provide “Undo” and/or “Confirm” functionality
17:39:50 [Greg]
Software should provide a mechanism that enables users to undo at least the most recent user action and/or cancel the action during a confirmation step [44].
17:39:51 [Greg]
NOTE 1Although this is a general ergonomic principle, “Undo” mechanisms are particularly important for users who
17:39:53 [Greg]
have disabilities that significantly increase the likelihood of an unintentional action. These users can require significant time and effort to recover from such unintentional actions.
17:39:54 [Greg]
NOTE 2 A macro is considered to be one user action.
17:39:56 [Greg]
NOTE 3Generally, the more consecutive actions the user can undo, the better.
17:39:58 [Greg]
NOTE 4It is preferable that undo operations themselves can be undone.
17:39:59 [Greg]
NOTE 5However, this might not be possible for such interactions as operations causing fundamental transformation of
17:40:01 [Greg]
logical or physical devices, or could involve a data exchange with third parties that are out of the software’s control, etc.
17:40:02 [Greg]
NOTE 6The default configuration can provide a confirmation step for any action that the user cannot undo with a
17:40:04 [Greg]
single “Undo” command.
17:40:06 [Greg]
NOTE 7Software could allow the user to disable the confirmation for specific actions.
17:40:08 [Greg]
EXAMPLE 1A user with Parkinson’s disease might inadvertently input a sequence of keystrokes that activates several
17:40:11 [Greg]
dialogues that then need to be undone. The use of several steps of the undo function permits the user to go back to the original state.
17:40:14 [Greg]
EXAMPLE 2A user is about to format a hard disk. As this is an operation that cannot be undone, the software shows
17:40:16 [Greg]
a confirmation dialog before the formatting begins.
17:41:36 [KimPatch]
Greg: anytime you press a hotkey that moves the focus to another object or invokes another window or invokes some user interface element -- need notification or don't need notification, that's where the examples come in
17:42:00 [KimPatch]
Greg: entire category of things which user might accidentally invoke or might be invoked for them without their knowledge
17:42:42 [KimPatch]
Jim: in a form, no way to unpush a radio button
17:43:25 [KimPatch]
Greg: another issue with people using in unintended way, but not be able to change is bad
17:43:38 [kford]
kford has joined #ua
17:44:26 [KimPatch]
Mark: from the UA point of view the only thing reliably undo are things within the UA interface
17:44:56 [KimPatch]
Greg: in some cases implemented in such a way that is using real controls, in other cases custom controls
17:45:29 [KimPatch]
Jim: Web 2.0 Web applications there's not a lot of undo that the user has control over
17:46:11 [KimPatch]
Jim: can't do it undo in the middle of JavaScripted thing
17:46:16 [kford]
kford has joined #ua
17:47:20 [KimPatch]
Jim: I think the form submission thing is really focused for success criteria, but then what Mark was talking about when things are heavily scripted in the UA doesn't have a lot to do
17:48:06 [KimPatch]
Greg: a lot would fit in there, things like spellchecking helps users avoid mistakes -- hoping to look through whole iso-2.1
17:48:32 [kford]
17:49:00 [Greg]
(ISO 9241-171 "Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 171: Guidance on
17:49:01 [KimPatch]
Jim: example of Firefox red squiggly underlined this spelled word -- does that get revealed, that's up there in guideline to
17:49:02 [Greg]
software accessibility:)
17:49:35 [KimPatch]
Kelly: as written right now this seems like another one that should be axed. has nothing to do with making the user interface understandable
17:49:52 [KimPatch]
kelly: too narrowly focused
17:50:51 [KimPatch]
Jim: Greg, see if there's a generic success criteria?
17:51:17 [KimPatch]
Craig: I'm still hoping that everything like that that's not specifically Web related will be taken out of our document before too long
17:51:49 [AllanJ]
issue: review UAAG20 and ISO 9241-171 remove duplicate items
17:51:49 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-43 - Review UAAG20 and ISO 9241-171 remove duplicate items ; please complete additional details at .
17:52:33 [KimPatch]
Jim: important what you said about removing all the little bits that are already in generic software accessibility and only include the things that are specific to user agents
17:53:04 [KimPatch]
Greg: still waiting on at what point we can reference other documents
17:54:46 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: complaints about referencing a document people have to pay for
17:55:09 [KimPatch]
Greg: it would reduce the chance that guidelines would conflict with each other
17:55:19 [AllanJ]
Action: Greg recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.)
17:55:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-224 - Recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.) [on Greg Lowney - due 2009-09-17].
17:57:16 [KimPatch]
Jim: 5.3 -- are these in iso
17:57:34 [KimPatch]
Greg: section 11 online documentation help and support services
17:58:19 [kford]
17:58:57 [AllanJ]
ack kford
17:59:26 [KimPatch]
Kelly: if the point of this guidelines is making user agent understandable, missing the boat, only talk about the things that are related to accessibility
18:00:06 [KimPatch]
Kelly: either its only talking about accessibility or we are being too narrow
18:01:08 [KimPatch]
Kelly: office ribbon as an example -- if I don't think that benefits accessibility all I have to do is make sure that it's documented, but it's really a new action paradigm for me to understand what's going on and how to interact with it I should make sure that the ribbon is explained.
18:02:11 [KimPatch]
Jim: I agree -- it's not really scoped right
18:02:58 [KimPatch]
Jim: we may be missing a lot about making the user interface understandable -- I'm not sure where we need to go with it
18:04:25 [KimPatch]
Jim: the ribbon was a whole metaphor for how they were going to do things and change the excepted standard of drop-down menus that everybody had used -- does that mean that if a browser comes out with a new user interface do they have to provide documentation that explains -- chicken and egg thing -- ribbon is a huge leap.
18:04:57 [KimPatch]
Kelly: p1 document accessibility, getting people to explain, level 3
18:06:08 [KimPatch]
Mark: something new -- has to be self documented or self explaining
18:07:12 [KimPatch]
Henny: we have a documentation department -- each new release they go back through and update -- it's a massive job
18:08:04 [KimPatch]
Henny: original features touch browsing, in which case written from scratch
18:08:52 [KimPatch]
Jim: do you do a how-to, or here it is, does this
18:09:37 [KimPatch]
Henny: one document -- difficult for users to gather information they need when it's spread all over the documentation
18:10:14 [kford]
Action: kford to draft guideline on how to document the user interface
18:10:14 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - kford
18:11:25 [AllanJ]
KP: Word Ribbon, much worse for speech users, increased number of steps, amount of space taken up by ribbon affected some users.
18:12:02 [AllanJ]
...metric of counting steps, made it much worse. instructions are very different for speech users.
18:12:10 [Greg]
5.3.3 "Changes Between Versions" should require documentation of "changes to features that AFFECT accessibility" rather than only those that "BENEFIT" accessibility.
18:12:30 [AllanJ]
...instructions are different for different populatiohs
18:15:54 [jeanne]
action: JS to update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT
18:15:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-225 - Update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-09-17].
18:16:37 [KimPatch]
Jim: Kelly's comment on principal 5 overall
18:16:55 [KimPatch]
Greg: principles don't refer to understandable
18:17:12 [Greg]
Suggest retitling the Principle to better reflect what we put into it.
18:18:22 [KimPatch]
Greg: one or more additional principles to replace five to contain what doesn't fit in anywhere else
18:18:56 [KimPatch]
Jim: crux of understandable in WCAG says documentation can't be beyond the users understanding
18:19:34 [KimPatch]
Jim: put it under operable, also put confirmation under operable?
18:20:57 [KimPatch]
Greg: if we want to have an understandable principle because of the paralleling, principle used in other documents, things that would fit under that principle include providing documentation, level language used, consistency of terminology used within the product and its documentation
18:22:16 [Greg]
An example from ISO of something that would fit under an "Understandable" princple is: 8.1.2 Provide meaningful names Names of user-interface elements should be comprised of natural language words that are meaningful to the intended users.
18:24:02 [KimPatch]
Greg: dealing with input, output, sound -- interesting choice that WAI creating documents that aren't structured for developer -- problematic determining where to put things
18:25:04 [Greg]
That is, ISO 9241-171 and ANSI 200.2 are both organized by functional areas (e.g. input, labeling, etc.) rather than by principles; the former is more oriented towards software designers/implementers.
18:25:11 [AllanJ]
scribe: KimPatch
18:26:21 [AllanJ]
KP: if using natural language, commands have 3 word phrase, with only last word different, make commands very long
18:28:22 [AllanJ]
...object should be first, then action, "page bookmark" vs "bookmark page"
18:28:37 [AllanJ]
...front loading information
18:29:01 [AllanJ]
...dialog box title should be same name as menu item that opens it
18:29:56 [KimPatch]
Jim: operable or design technique
18:31:21 [Zakim]
- +1.425.883.aaaa
18:31:22 [Zakim]
18:31:23 [Zakim]
18:31:25 [Zakim]
18:31:43 [Zakim]
- +1.425.895.aacc
18:33:24 [KimPatch]
rrs agent, make minutes
18:33:41 [KimPatch]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:33:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate KimPatch
18:33:52 [jeanne]
zakim, who is still here?
18:33:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AllanJ, +1.617.325.aabb
18:33:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see kford, mth, KimPatch, Greg, jeanne, iheni, RRSAgent, Zakim, AllanJ, trackbot
18:34:58 [AllanJ]
zakim, please part
18:34:58 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.425.883.aaaa, Jeanne, AllanJ, +1.617.325.aabb, +1.425.895.aacc, MTH
18:34:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ua
18:35:34 [AllanJ]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:35:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AllanJ
18:35:55 [AllanJ]
rrsagent, please part
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Greg recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.) [1]
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: kford to draft guideline on how to document the user interface [2]
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JS to update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT [3]
18:35:55 [RRSAgent]
recorded in