See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2010
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2010
/msg allanj do you want to drive today?
<scribe> Scribe: kford
Group reviewing open action items.
JA: Jeanne you have a mess of these related to getting text in the document.,
JS: I have some notes.
... I need someone else to take 314.
Group discussing what action 314 is about.
GL: There are several ways to handle. We can put exceptions, scope each SC.
GL: Or we can put some general exceptions in the conformance section. Gave example of device not having a keyboard.
Group continues to review history of action 314.
GL: Did we decide what direction we want to go.
Kelly taking action 314.
JS: For item 317 I couldn't find the files.
<AllanJ> discussing action-334
<AllanJ> kp: google documents has 2 focus points, when collaborating on a document
<AllanJ> ... our focus definitions cover this
<AllanJ> gl: focus and writing cursor
<AllanJ> kp: will need to check
<AllanJ> mh: what does a screen mag know which cursor to follow
<AllanJ> ja: are the cursors programatically determinable
<AllanJ> ... how to switch between them.
<AllanJ> gl: doubt there is any a11y api that tracks 2 cursors.
<AllanJ> mh: perhaps aria. group collaborative documents
<AllanJ> gl: does aria have anything about cursors
<AllanJ> mh: not directly. should talk to them
<AllanJ> kp: multiple windows similar to multiple cursors
<KimPatch> look at all the focus references in the guidelines and it's necessary reconcile them with the new definitions
<AllanJ> ACTION: kp to look at all the focus references in the guidelines and it's necessary reconcile them with the new definitions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Look at all the focus references in the guidelines and it's necessary reconcile them with the new definitions [on Kimberly Patch - due 2010-05-06].
<Greg> Accessibility API needs to handle multiple instances of input focus (for multiple keyboards and/or pointing devices), selection (e.g. multiple users during real-time collaboration) and highlighting.
<AllanJ> discussion of editing. if others can send JS stuff that can be pasted into the document it make the work go faster.
/me I am back and *big* apologies for being gone so lone.
<mhakkinen> mark has to step away, may be back before end of call
JA: From an HTML 5 accessibility
task force group, there is potential for us to have to add to
our implamenting document.
... The HTML 5 spec has a lot of details on user agent behavior. There is some dcussion that this doesn't belong in the spec and might be more appropriate in other documents.
JA and GL clariffffffffycope.
JA and GL clarify scope.
PL: Can we do some harmonization?
JA: Michael has a set of bugs
that we think represent the issues.
... We should be getting the specific issues from Michael Cooper as a starting list.
<AllanJ> UAWG should review materials from MCooper and report back about what we did
More clarification on this from the group.
PL: Can a spec go to last call if it reences other docus that are not done.
JS: If they reference a normative doc yes but not if it is justttttttttttttt ormative.
JA: Just a friendly reminder when you send e-mail to the list on your action items include the item number and such.
Syntax is Action- <number>, where number is the number of your action item.
JA: We put out a new working
draft and asked for comments and didn't get any.
... JS believes most compnaies won't review until we are more stable.
JS: This is a problem that W3C is working on addressing in general.
<patrickhlauke> so is this the right time to already tap companies about it?
<AllanJ> KF: should we extend date or put out another working draft?
<AllanJ> gl: if we are putting out new draft, it doesn't make sense to extend date.
<AllanJ> kf: need a strategy to get more input. should wait for a new draft.
KP: Let's identify target people
and notify them in advance.
... Assign folks to follow up and get feedback from our targetted audience.
<patrickhlauke> i'll pester Opera internal, obviously
<AllanJ> everyone think of 1 or 2 people to ping for review
Group will pick target people. Everyone try to identify two folks for next meeting.
Goal it to publish next working draft in a week.
JA: Talking about Kelly's e-mail on BN and browsing. I read something that says mobile browsing is more popular or will be than the desktop.
KP: What does our group use today?
PL: Opera is on more devices than any other browser.
KP: I use an iPhone.
PL: We have Opera in a lot of non-traditional devices like picture frames, cars and such.
JA: There have also been articles on TV manufacturers putting the browser in the TV.
<patrickhlauke> i use iphone / android
<patrickhlauke> being careful not to mix device with browser - e,g, android has lots of different browsers
<AllanJ> kf: are there users and other mobile browser companies that we could target
<AllanJ> pl: iphone and android are just platforms, they can have many different browsers that run on each
PL: Kind of a complex challenge
here because of the different hardware manufacturers and
... Can we ping the mobile web group in the W3C?
<patrickhlauke> also AT support on different devices / platforms varies
GL: Does our stuff cover set top boxes?
<patrickhlauke> it should
JA: We'd hope so. UAAG was desktop centric. Glao for this is to go beyond.
<patrickhlauke> devices that consume/display web content in general
GL: We need to get some of these
vendors then involved.
... Also need to call out more of who we aim UAAG for in the intro.
... Specifically call out stuff like st top.
PL: I've had some involvement with a UK effort to define some accessibility that encompasses the broad case of web accessibility.
<patrickhlauke> ACTION: PL to check wording of draft BSI BS8878 re making it cover all "web consuming" devices [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Check wording of draft BSI BS8878 re making it cover all "web consuming" devices [on Patrick Lauke - due 2010-05-06].
PL: BBC is a driving force behind this effort.
Group is going to rerun the survey.
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) FAILED: s/dscussion/discussion/ Found Scribe: kford Inferring ScribeNick: kford Default Present: Jim_Allan, Greg, kford, Jeanne, patricklauke, +1.617.325.aaaa, kimpatch, mhakkenin, +1.508.877.aabb Present: Kelly Greg Jim Patrick Mark Jeanne Kim Regrets: Simon Found Date: 29 Apr 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-ua-minutes.html People with action items: kp pl WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]