See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2010
wai-ua/2010JulSep/0061.html Agenda+ ATAG review
<kford> UAAG Members:
<kford> These are the comments I am proposing to send to the official comment address for Authoring tool guidelines 2.0 last call. This is on our agenda to discuss on 9/2/2010.
<kford> You can find the last call document at http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/.
<kford> 1.
<kford> A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized alternative content is available for editing view content renderings, then the alternative content is provided to authors.
<kford> UAReview: (and other SC) this and other success criteria were at time very hard to understand (for us it depended on the line breaks). suggest changing 'editing view' to 'editing-view'. it may help the reader understand the content rendering and alternative content are in the editing-view.
<kford> 2.
<kford> A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.2]
<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or
<kford> the goal of A.3.7 is to ensure the preview is accessible.
<kford> if A.3.7.2.a is true, there is no guarantee that the 3rd party user agent is accessible. A.3.7.2.a only says there is a preview, A.3.7.2.b the preview must be accessible according to UAAG. the way A.3.7.2 is written having a preview and the preview being accessible could be mutually exclusive.
<kford> UAReview: Suggest changing
<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or to be
<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party accessible user agent;
<kford> 3.
<kford> 1. Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited, such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, documentation, etc.
<kford> UAReview:What about authoring systems that offer end-to-end publishing and web server publication/configuration. It should be clear where any line for AU responsibility ends.
<kford> 4.
<kford> A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings.
<kford> UAReview:Broaden this to any settings that impact accessibility?
<kford> 5.
<kford> B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.
<kford> UAReview: How does this differ from just making any templates accessible? One would assume all templates offered should have equal accessibility. What happens if the end user selects a template with less accessibility?
<kford> 6.
<kford> B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.4] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.
<kford> UAReview: The definition for prominence says in part:
<kford> For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if:
<kford> both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes); if item B is emphasized, then so is item A;
<kford> so if the accessible option is at the bottom of a menu separated from the less accessible option by 10 entires, this is acceptable? If the list has 25 items and the user must scroll to see the accessible option, is this then acceptable?
<Greg> Re #1 A.2.1.1, I agree totally with your concern--when read as plain text it's unfathomable. To me the clearest wording for the SC would be "is available when rendering content in editing views", if they can adopt the phrase "rendering content" as equivalent to "content rendering".
<Greg> Re #2, A.3.7.2, I think a clearer, less subjective wording for would be "The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent that conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A; or". However, we should also acknowledge that the authoring tool may allow the user to configure which third-party user agent should be used, and should be able to pick an accessible one but...
<Greg> ...should not be prohibited from choosing an inaccessible one. I haven't had time to draft wording that entirely works.
<Greg> Re #3, 1., You might want to give examples to more clearly define what you mean by "authoring systems that offer end-to-end publishing and web server publication/configuration". Would that include Web-based authoring tools such as when Drupal provides forms where the user can author or edit content that it hosts, using either text markup or WYSIWIG mode, and their choice of Web browsers?
<Greg> Re #4, A.3.6.2, Their definitions of "display settings" and "control settings" seem broad enough to possibly include all input or output preference settings; however, it would be nice if one didn't have to take the links to the glossary to figure that out, and it's still somewhat ambiguous: would it include the option to hide or show alternative text? Also, an example of preference settings...
<Greg> ...beyond display and control settings that still affect accessibility would be the option to turn on and off AT compatibility modes such as support for platform accessibility API.
<Greg> Re #5, B2.5.2, It sounds like you're proposing a requirement that if the user selects an inaccessible template, the authoring tool at least provides an accessible mechanism to exit the mode where they're using that template.
<Greg> Also minor, but it might clarify that we're talking about templates that are accessible to the author while creating or editing content, not templates that are designed to produce content accessible to the end-user. Is the latter also addressed somewhere?
<Greg> Re #6, Of the topic somewhat, but the question of whether accessible options should be displayed as prominently as, and/or in proximity to, their inaccessible counterparts applies to more things than just templates (for example, a list of schemes).
<scribe> scribe: AllanJ
KF will send merged comments (including Gregs) to the ATWG after the meeting
<kford> my phone seems dead.
<kford> phoning in again. odd.
<kford> phone system is acting weird.
kf: a11y taskforce found 6 bugs
that UAWG needs to adopt
... need to review bugs, history, and if we care about them and
then adopt them.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751
<kford> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751
KP: question about HTML5 resolution of bug (work, won't)
kf: who wants to take these up, if we take them up, it is not an insignificant amount of work
ja: response on 8751 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010JulSep/0067.html
js: does our SC on blinking in
4.7 impact this.
... might have a chance in changing html5
ja: question - do we want to change html5 or are they things we need to add to uaag
js: should add to our spec. then also html5
gl: html has lots of inaccessible stuff, the accessibility is fixed in WCAG and UAAG
<Greg> Or to rephrase that, HTML allows creation of inaccessible content, which we try to address in WCAG and UAAG.
discussion of 8648, 8666, and 8682
kf: need 1 person to understand bugs, what does html5 say, etc. and make presentation to the group.
<Greg> Bug 8647 - Define tab order for IFrame: I agree that this would be useful, because the author can prescribe tab order within a frame or frameless document, but essentially cannot for the entire document as they have no way to control or even hint how it works on a page that includes iframes. However, unlike some accessibility problems with HTML5, this one could be addressed as future...
<Greg> ...enhancement to HTML5 attributes, rather than needing to be in from the beginning.
ja: action Jallan review bugs listed in > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751
kf: group bugs into 1 - html off base must be fixed, 2 - this is a uaag issue, fix now, 3 - fix later
<Greg> I think that we can postpone any concerns (like 8647) that don't absolutely need to be fixed in the first incarnation of HTML5 because they can be fixed later.
action Jallan review bugs listed in > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751
<trackbot> Created ACTION-440 - Review bugs listed in > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751 [on Jim Allan - due 2010-09-09].
sh: agree with the proposed resolutions
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/UAWG20100824/results
discussion for video meeting
js: 9 &10
kp +1
ja: +1
sh +1 (could participate for 3 or 4 hours)
discussion of start time
proposed 7 pacific, 9 central, 10 eastern, 3 gmt
Resolved: video telecon Nov 9-10 starting 7 pacific, 2 gmt
Resolution: video telecon Nov 9-10 starting 7 pacific, 2 gmt
change url http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results
kf: start with q3 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq3
<Greg> Current wording:
<Greg> 2.1.3 Accessible Alternative: If a component of the user agent user interface cannot be exposed through the platform accessibility architecture, then provide an equivalent alternative that is exposed through the platform accessibility architecture. (Level A)
<Greg> * Intent of Success Criterion 2.1.3:
<Greg> Users need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the user agent. The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure that when circumstances do not allow direct accessibility to some items in the user agent, there is an accessible option that will let them complete their task.
<Greg> * Examples of Success Criterion 2.1.3 :
<Greg> o The user agent provides a single, complex control for 3-dimensional manipulation of a virtual object. This custom control cannot be represented in the platform accessibility architecture, so the user agent provides the user the option to achieve the same functionality through an alternate user interface, such as a panel with several basic controls that adjust the yar, spin, and...
<Greg> ...roll independently.
gl: need to mention API and platform accessibility architecture
kf: the sc says if component can't be exposed, get the user an equivalent.
gl: yes, then intent throws in 'direct accessibility', needs to be replaced
<Greg> The upshot is the Intent says "direct accessibility" where it should say something like "support for assistive technology using a platform accessibility architecture".
kf: perhaps say 'direct accessibility through the platform accessibility architecture'
<Greg> Thus "Users need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the user agent. The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure that when a component does not support assistive technlogy via a platform accessibility architecture, there is an accessible component that does."
<Greg> "Users who rely on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a particular user interface component cannot support for the platform accessibiltiy architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with assistive technology, the user agent should let the user achieve the same goal using another component that IS fully...
<Greg> ...accessible."
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to update intent for 2.1.3 to be "Users who rely on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a particular user interface component cannot support for the platform accessibiltiy architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with assistive technology, the user agent should let the user achieve the... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-441 - Update intent for 2.1.3 to be "Users who rely on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a particular user interface component cannot support for the platform accessibiltiy architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with assistive technology, the user agent should let the user achieve the... [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: same goal using another component that IS fully accessible."
topic # Proposal for 2.1.4 Programmatic Availability of DOMs http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq4
<Greg> Current wording:
<Greg> 2.1.4 Programmatic Availability of DOMs: If the user agent implements one or more DOMs, they must be made programmatically available to assistive technologies. (Level A)
<Greg> * Intent of Success Criterion 2.1.4:
<Greg> User agents (and other applications) and assistive technologies use a combination of DOMs, accessibility APIs, native platform APIs, and hard-coded heuristics to provide an accessible user interface and accessible content (http://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/atspi/adoc/a11y-dom-apis.html). It is the user agents responsibility to expose all relevant content to the...
<Greg> ...platform accessibility api. Alternatively, the user agent must respond to requests for information from APIs.
<Greg> * Examples of Success Criterion 2.1.4 :
<Greg> o In user agents today, an author may inject content into a web page using CSS (generated content). This content is written to the screen and the CSS DOM. The user agent does not expose this generated content from the CSS-DOM (as per CSS recommendation) to the platform accessibility API or to the HTML-DOM. This generated content is non-existent to an assistive technology user. The...
<Greg> ...user agent should expose all information from all DOMs to the platform accessibility API.
<Greg> o A web page is a compound document containing HTML, MathML, and SVG. Each has a separate DOM. As the user moves through the document, they are moving through multiple DOMs. The transition between DOMs is seamless and transparent to the user and their assistive technology. All of the content is read and all of the interaction is available from the keyboard regardless of the...
<Greg> ...underlying source code or the respective DOM.
kf: defer till later
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to replace example 1 in intent for 2.1.5 to be "When the user says the phrase 'Volume 35%' their speech input utility can programmatically set the value of the volume slider to 35%, rather than having to use trial and error by simulating mouse clicks or arrow presses to try to find the 35% point." change 'programatic' in the intent to be 'programmatic' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-442 - Replace example 1 in intent for 2.1.5 to be "When the user says the phrase 'Volume 35%' their speech input utility can programmatically set the value of the volume slider to 35%, rather than having to use trial and error by simulating mouse clicks or arrow presses to try to find the 35% point." change 'programatic' in the intent to be 'programmatic' [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
<Greg> Tom activates a macro that sets the value of a tri-state check boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility to set the control directly to the desired state.
<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility set the value of a tri-state check boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state.
<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state check boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state.
<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state.
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to changes example 2 in 2.1.5 to be "Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Changes example 2 in 2.1.5 to be "Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state." [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
# intent of Success Criterion 2.1.6: These properties are all used by assistive technology to allow provide alternative means for the user to view or navigate the content, or to accurately create a view of the user interface and rendered content. # Examples of Success Criterion 2.1.61: * Kiara loads a new version of a popular web browser for the first time. She puts her screen reader...
scribe: into an "explore mode"
that lets her review what is appearing on the screen. Her
screen reader uses the bounding rectangle of each element to
tell her that items from the menu bar all appear on the same
horizontal line, which is below the window's title bar. * Kiara
is using a screen reader at a telephone call center. The Web
application displays caller names in different colors...
... depending on their banking status. Kiara needs to know this
information to appropriately respond to each customer
immediately, without taking the time to look up their status
through other means. * Max uses a screen magnifier that only
shows him a small amount of the screen at one time. He gives it
commands to pan through different portions of a Web page, but
then can give it...
... additional commands to quickly pan back to positions of
interest, such as the text matched by the recent Search
operation, text that he previously selected by dragging the
mouse, or the text caret, rather than having to manually pan
through the document searching for them.
These properties are used by assistive technology to create alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered content as well as providing alternative means the user to interact with these items.
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to change 1 sentence of intent of 2.1.6 to be "These properties are used by assistive technology to create alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered content as well as providing alternative means for the user to interact with these items." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Change 1 sentence of intent of 2.1.6 to be "These properties are used by assistive technology to create alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered content as well as providing alternative means for the user to interact with these items." [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
kf: 4 accepts,
... need to review personas
http://www.aegis-project.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=53
<scribe> ACTION: GregLowney to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - GregLowney
<scribe> ACTION: Greg to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-445 - Redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [on Greg Lowney - due 2010-09-09].
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) Found Scribe: AllanJ Inferring ScribeNick: AllanJ Default Present: kford, AllanJ, Greg, JanRichards, Jeanne, sharper, Kim Present: kford AllanJ Greg JanRichards Jeanne sharper Kim Regrets: GRosmaita Found Date: 02 Sep 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html People with action items: greg greglowney jeanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]