See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2011
<sharper> I'm here - i can't hear you guys either
<sharper> let me reconnect
<Jan> Simon - want to connect via Skype?
<sharper> I'm here
<sharper> no
<sharper> not muted\
<sharper> let me see
We could meet during CSUN
MH -
JR -1
GL +1
SH _1
Js and JA +1
schedule longer telecons, or 2 day marathons.
JR: 3 hour telecons were helpful for ATAG
MH: 3 or 4 hour calls would be better
SH: 3 + hours ok, with enough scheduling.
gl: not sure if video is so useful.
JR: skype has video conferencing 7 days free.
<scribe> scribe: jallan
scribenic: jallan
rewriting 3.3.4.
gl: comment: Just an aside, would this mean that the accessibility section of a product's documentation needs to list the fact that it complies with standards for HTML, CSS, SVG, etc.? Of course, no user agent actually does fully comply with all those standards, so do we expect them to say they "substantially" comply with or implement them?
<Greg> Relevant SC: 5.4.1 (former 1.4.1) Follow Specifications: Render content according to the technology specification, except where it would actually harm overall accessibility. (Level A)
discussion of GL comment.
jr: only applies to things that
meet the requirements of UAAG 2
... IER - or applicability note. when we talk about supporting
a technology it means the parts of the technology we
support
<Greg> Jan discussing: 5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features of content and platform technology specifications. Accessibility features are those that are either (Level A) : * identified as such in the specification or * allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
JR 2 kinds of accessibility features - alt text 5.3.1
<Jan> 5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features of content and platform technology specifications. Accessibility features are those that are either (Level A):
<Jan> * identified as such in the specification or
<Jan> * allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.
scribe: accessibility of the UA, a different SC
jr: UA must explain how its features work, e.g. how it indicates longdesc
3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized view of all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of this document.
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to add 3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized of all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-484 - Add 3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized of all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2011-01-20].
<Greg> The phrase "this document" should be changed to "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to replace "this document" with "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Replace "this document" with "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2011-01-20].
discussion intent for 3.3.2
jr: sees SC as very user level. the last paragraph should be more general
gl: perhaps explain how the user can get the most accessibility out of the UA.
jr: good idea.
kp: there should be some basic instructions, that helps users use the product.
gl: goal of this sc is to provide the user with the information they need to accessibly use the UA.
<Greg> We want to explain that and why user agent documentation needs to explain how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features.
<scribe> ACTION: jim to rewrite 3.3.2 to expand on 'documented' to include- how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Rewrite 3.3.2 to expand on 'documented' to include- how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features [on Jim Allan - due 2011-01-20].
<Greg> Do we want to require/recommend that user agent documentation should include what portions of standards (e.g. HTML, CSS) are not supported? If so, does that fit into this SC or into a new SC? (Currently it's explicitly mentioned only in the final paragraph of the Intent.)
<Greg> A concrete example is a user who wants to install a user-supplied stylesheet that displays alt text after each image. If a browser does not support generated content in this way, because that's one of the small bits of the CSS standard which it does not fully implement, should the user be able to figure that out from product documentation (included with or on its web site), rather than spend...
<Greg> ...days trying to experiment and bang their head against the wall trying to figure out why it's not working.
jr: makes sense. from a conformance perspective, this is informative.
this is a level A requirement, features are documents. if we want things specifically documented, then it needs to be in the SC
<Greg> Jan suggests that requiring documentation of the details of what portions of technology specs are supported should be lower priority, such as AA or AAA.
KP: +1
GL: +1, but not a deal breaker
MH: +1
Sh: +1
JR: +1
JA: +1
<scribe> ACTION: Greg to write proposal requiring documentation of the details of what portions of technology specs are supported should be lower priority, such as AA or AAA. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-487 - Write proposal requiring documentation of the details of what portions of technology specs are supported should be lower priority, such as AA or AAA. [on Greg Lowney - due 2011-01-20].
scenario: video is opened, it has captions, but they don't work, what should UA do, inform user
GL: should be AA or AAA
JR: where does this end, what if wai-aria-describe-by, but no target, does user get informed
should UA inform user that captions that were supposed to play are not available?
KP: yes,
GL: +/-
MH: +/- with lean on yes
SH: -, agree with JR, where will it end
JR: -
<Greg> I wouldn't want to be prescriptive of HOW the message is presented. And I'm not sure a requirement on error messages is needed, as I don't see a major difference between a video with no captions and a video with missing captions. I don't think any user agent won't play the video just because captions can't be found, but OK with explicitly requiring it if people want to.
JR: low priority.
kp: sees a user, needs captions, but they have a setting wrong.
jr: need to complain to provider.
kp: user needs to know that captions are provided but are broken.
<Greg> Another equivalent scenario, like Jan's on described-by, would be a web page that includes a remote image; if the remote image was unavailable, would you require that the user agent put some placeholder, rather than allowing it to just omit the missing image altogether? Sure, we might consider showing a placeholder to be better design, but is it important enough to warrant a success criterion?
<Greg> Any SC addressing this issue for captions would also apply to audio description. Would it be generalized to any form of alternative content?
<mhakkinen> +1 to gl
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: jallan Inferring ScribeNick: JAllan Default Present: Jim_Allan, +1.425.895.aaaa, Greg, sharper, Jan, Simon, KimPatch Present: Jim_Allan +1.425.895.aaaa Greg sharper Jan Simon KimPatch Regrets: KFord JSpellman Found Date: 13 Jan 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html People with action items: greg jeanne jim[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]