16:42:48 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:42:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-irc 16:43:02 zakim, this will be wai_u 16:43:02 ok, AllanJ; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes 16:43:20 rrsagent, set logs public 16:49:16 iheni has joined #ua 16:49:21 iheni has left #ua 16:49:24 iheni has joined #ua 16:51:08 trackbot, start meeting 16:51:10 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:51:12 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:51:12 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 16:51:13 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:51:13 Date: 10 September 2009 16:51:38 chair: Jim_Allan 16:52:27 Agenda+ Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)? Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face 16:52:50 zakim, remove item 1 16:52:50 agendum 1, Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)? Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face, dropped 16:53:07 Agenda+ Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face 16:53:20 mth has joined #ua 16:53:21 Agenda+ Review & Open Discussion UAAG20 Guideline 5 16:53:36 jeanne has joined #ua 16:54:10 Agenda+ Review survey at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090722/results 16:54:36 zakim, save agena 16:54:36 I don't understand 'save agena', AllanJ 16:54:53 zakim, save agenda 16:54:59 ok, AllanJ, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-agenda.rdf 16:56:03 kford has joined #ua 16:57:02 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 16:57:09 + +1.425.883.aaaa 16:57:55 zakim, 425883 is kford 16:57:55 sorry, kford, I do not recognize a party named '425883' 16:58:23 zakim, 425.883.aaaa is kford 16:58:23 sorry, kford, I do not recognize a party named '425.883.aaaa' 16:58:41 zakim 1.425.883.aaaa is kford 16:58:51 +??P1 17:00:24 trackbot, start meeting 17:00:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:00:29 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 17:00:29 ok, trackbot, I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM already started 17:00:30 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 17:00:30 Date: 10 September 2009 17:00:54 Chair: Jim_allan 17:01:40 +Jeanne 17:02:38 Greg has joined #ua 17:03:03 -??P1 17:03:14 +??P7 17:04:34 +AllanJ 17:04:38 zakim, agenda? 17:04:38 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 17:04:39 2. Preliminary discussion of Techniques for Face to Face [from AllanJ] 17:04:40 3. Review & Open Discussion UAAG20 Guideline 5 [from AllanJ] 17:04:41 4. Review survey at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090722/results [from AllanJ] 17:04:50 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:04:51 +??P9 17:05:36 + +1.617.325.aabb 17:06:15 regrets: JanRichards, SimonHarper 17:06:17 -??P9 17:06:25 + +1.425.895.aacc 17:06:34 zakim, P7 is Mark 17:06:34 sorry, jeanne, I do not recognize a party named 'P7' 17:07:00 zakim, ??P7 is really MTH 17:07:00 +MTH; got it 17:07:07 zakim, who is here? 17:07:07 On the phone I see +1.425.883.aaaa, Jeanne, MTH, AllanJ, +1.617.325.aabb, +1.425.895.aacc 17:07:09 On IRC I see KimPatch, Greg, kford, jeanne, mth, iheni, RRSAgent, Zakim, AllanJ, trackbot 17:07:33 +??P9 17:09:33 regrets +DavidTseng 17:09:46 WCAG20 Techniques http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ 17:10:13 ATAG Techniques http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/#gl-Web-based-accessible 17:10:38 UAAG10 Techniques http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-UAAG10-TECHS-20021217/ 17:11:31 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 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 Jim: at least we would have a different model to go by 17:13:28 Jean: the content for the working group is a big deal and hard to do 17:14:01 Henny: good idea 17:15:35 Jim: face-to-face agenda 17:16:19 Kelly: two, three, four will take the longest 17:16:58 Jim: write comments to the list, will finalize the agenda and get it out 17:17:34 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 Jim: 5.1 help users avoid unnecessary messages 17:18:10 While it’s important, I don’t see “avoiding unnecessary messages” as making the UI “understandable”. 17:19:48 Jim: let the user change -- override what the author set 17:21:13 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 -MTH 17:21:45 mth has left #ua 17:22:15 Kelly: is this already covered -- you're supposed to respect all the politeness levels shouldn't that come in from aria? 17:23:02 Kelly: does the user agent have to support aria to comply with our guidelines? 17:23:42 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 Henny: In WCAG, you don't reference specific technologies 17:26:25 mth has joined #ua 17:26:48 Kelly: should we 86 this one 17:27:35 +??P7 17:27:38 Kelly: how do I know what I've satisfied this criteria? 17:28:11 Greg: there's the issue of text messages as opposed to a more general form of alerts or notifications 17:28:26 q+ to say that it appears to be more of a usability issue than an accessibility issue. 17:28:41 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 Mark: I think we updated that in the definition 17:29:22 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 ack j 17:29:49 jeanne, you wanted to say that it appears to be more of a usability issue than an accessibility issue. 17:30:50 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 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 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 Kelly: the subtle notifications that are being presented have a greater opportunity to be missed for accessibility purposes 17:33:30 Jim: change this so not to ignore but to modify 17:34:00 +q 17:34:18 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 -q 17:34:43 Kelly: hard to quantify, but maybe at a priority two it's OK 17:35:17 Jim: cell phone use -- these sort of alerts and warnings are these issues on cell phones also 17:35:43 usually just yes no prompts 17:35:51 action kford to rewrite 5.1.1 to be user has option to change rendering of messages from UA and content 17:35:51 Sorry, couldn't find user - kford 17:36:01 Kelly: usually very limited -- different experience 17:36:10 action kellyford to rewrite 5.1.1 to be user has option to change rendering of messages from UA and content 17:36:10 Sorry, couldn't find user - kellyford 17:37:44 Jim: 5.2 helped the users avoid mistakes -- usually involves form submission 17:38:30 Kelly: interesting concept and not a bad idea but I think we should lower it to a P3 17:39:25 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 Here's from ISO 9241-171: 17:39:48 8.4.3 Provide “Undo” and/or “Confirm” functionality 17:39:50 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 NOTE 1 Although this is a general ergonomic principle, “Undo” mechanisms are particularly important for users who 17:39:53 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 NOTE 2 A macro is considered to be one user action. 17:39:56 NOTE 3 Generally, the more consecutive actions the user can undo, the better. 17:39:58 NOTE 4 It is preferable that undo operations themselves can be undone. 17:39:59 NOTE 5 However, this might not be possible for such interactions as operations causing fundamental transformation of 17:40:01 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 NOTE 6 The default configuration can provide a confirmation step for any action that the user cannot undo with a 17:40:04 single “Undo” command. 17:40:06 NOTE 7 Software could allow the user to disable the confirmation for specific actions. 17:40:08 EXAMPLE 1 A user with Parkinson’s disease might inadvertently input a sequence of keystrokes that activates several 17:40:11 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 EXAMPLE 2 A user is about to format a hard disk. As this is an operation that cannot be undone, the software shows 17:40:16 a confirmation dialog before the formatting begins. 17:41:36 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 Greg: entire category of things which user might accidentally invoke or might be invoked for them without their knowledge 17:42:42 Jim: in a form, no way to unpush a radio button 17:43:25 Greg: another issue with people using in unintended way, but not be able to change is bad 17:43:38 kford has joined #ua 17:44:26 Mark: from the UA point of view the only thing reliably undo are things within the UA interface 17:44:56 Greg: in some cases implemented in such a way that is using real controls, in other cases custom controls 17:45:29 Jim: Web 2.0 Web applications there's not a lot of undo that the user has control over 17:46:11 Jim: can't do it undo in the middle of JavaScripted thing 17:46:16 kford has joined #ua 17:47:20 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 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 q+ 17:49:00 (ISO 9241-171 "Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 171: Guidance on 17:49:01 Jim: example of Firefox red squiggly underlined this spelled word -- does that get revealed, that's up there in guideline to 17:49:02 software accessibility:) 17:49:35 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 kelly: too narrowly focused 17:50:51 Jim: Greg, see if there's a generic success criteria? 17:51:17 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 issue: review UAAG20 and ISO 9241-171 remove duplicate items 17:51:49 Created ISSUE-43 - Review UAAG20 and ISO 9241-171 remove duplicate items ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/43/edit . 17:52:33 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 Greg: still waiting on at what point we can reference other documents 17:54:46 Jeanne: complaints about referencing a document people have to pay for 17:55:09 Greg: it would reduce the chance that guidelines would conflict with each other 17:55:19 Action: Greg recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.) 17:55:19 Created ACTION-224 - Recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.) [on Greg Lowney - due 2009-09-17]. 17:57:16 Jim: 5.3 -- are these in iso 17:57:34 Greg: section 11 online documentation help and support services 17:58:19 q+ 17:58:57 ack kford 17:59:26 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 Kelly: either its only talking about accessibility or we are being too narrow 18:01:08 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 Jim: I agree -- it's not really scoped right 18:02:58 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 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 Kelly: p1 document accessibility, getting people to explain, level 3 18:06:08 Mark: something new -- has to be self documented or self explaining 18:07:12 Henny: we have a documentation department -- each new release they go back through and update -- it's a massive job 18:08:04 Henny: original features touch browsing, in which case written from scratch 18:08:52 Jim: do you do a how-to, or here it is, does this 18:09:37 Henny: one document -- difficult for users to gather information they need when it's spread all over the documentation 18:10:14 Action: kford to draft guideline on how to document the user interface 18:10:14 Sorry, couldn't find user - kford 18:11:25 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 ...metric of counting steps, made it much worse. instructions are very different for speech users. 18:12:10 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 ...instructions are different for different populatiohs 18:15:54 action: JS to update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT 18:15:54 Created ACTION-225 - Update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-09-17]. 18:16:37 Jim: Kelly's comment on principal 5 overall 18:16:55 Greg: principles don't refer to understandable 18:17:12 Suggest retitling the Principle to better reflect what we put into it. 18:18:22 Greg: one or more additional principles to replace five to contain what doesn't fit in anywhere else 18:18:56 Jim: crux of understandable in WCAG says documentation can't be beyond the users understanding 18:19:34 Jim: put it under operable, also put confirmation under operable? 18:20:57 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 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 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 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 scribe: KimPatch 18:26:21 KP: if using natural language, commands have 3 word phrase, with only last word different, make commands very long 18:28:22 ...object should be first, then action, "page bookmark" vs "bookmark page" 18:28:37 ...front loading information 18:29:01 ...dialog box title should be same name as menu item that opens it 18:29:56 Jim: operable or design technique 18:31:21 - +1.425.883.aaaa 18:31:22 -??P7 18:31:23 -??P9 18:31:25 -Jeanne 18:31:43 - +1.425.895.aacc 18:33:24 rrs agent, make minutes 18:33:41 rrsagent, make minutes 18:33:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-minutes.html KimPatch 18:33:52 zakim, who is still here? 18:33:52 On the phone I see AllanJ, +1.617.325.aabb 18:33:53 On IRC I see kford, mth, KimPatch, Greg, jeanne, iheni, RRSAgent, Zakim, AllanJ, trackbot 18:34:58 zakim, please part 18:34:58 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 has left #ua 18:35:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 18:35:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-minutes.html AllanJ 18:35:55 rrsagent, please part 18:35:55 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-actions.rdf : 18:35:55 ACTION: Greg recast Guideline 5.2 to be more generic (spell check, etc.) [1] 18:35:55 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-irc#T17-55-19 18:35:55 ACTION: kford to draft guideline on how to document the user interface [2] 18:35:55 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-irc#T18-10-14 18:35:55 ACTION: JS to update document to change 5.3.3 from BENEFIT to AFFECT [3] 18:35:55 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/10-ua-irc#T18-15-54