User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

09 Jun 2011

See also: IRC log


+1.425.883.aaaa, kford, Jeanne, Jan, +1.425.895.aabb, sharper, Greg, Mark_Hakkinen, +1.508.877.aacc, +1.617.325.aadd, Kim


<trackbot> Date: 09 June 2011

<kford> 1.9.2-1.9.11 - focus

<kford> 1.11.2. Link info

<kford> 2.7.4 Direct navigation (?)

<kford> 2.7.6 direct Activation (?)

<kford> 2.7.7 Configure Set of Important Elements (?) 2.9.3, 4, 7- 2.9.12 Content control

Next Meeting: 3-4 November 2011 at W3C Technical Plenary in Santa Clara, CA, USA. - http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

Invited experts, let Judy know if you're having trouble with conference fees and travel costs.

<kford> JS: Anyone who is an invited expert for this confernece who has funding issues may contact Judy. Possible funding available.

HTML5 Accessibility Review

<kford> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0057.html

KF: PF WG asking for help reviewing HTML5, willing to do overhead of managing the bugs but would appreciate help reviewing the whole document.
... They're asking people to sign up to review specific sections.

JS: There are not yet many accessibility comments submitted on HTML5.
... People are so busy with existing issues that they don't have time to search for new issues.
... One bug was found quite quickly, implying there are many. Finding these new issues is something needed by everyone who cares about accessibility.

MH: Following one thread, often something else catches your eye. Restricting self to one section may not be optimal.

JS: Agrees, we should do our review the way we think will work best.
... But we should also help PF by taking on sections as part of our work.

<kford> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Spec_Review

SH: Will volunteer to work on globals.

<sharper> Yeliz Yesilada

JS: Will try to get Yeliz Yesilada to work on tables.

KF: Will look at "user agents loading web pages" listed in the PF request.

GL: Will work on focus, probably with Kim.

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Work_Topics

JS: That link is to a list of already identified problems/issues, so we don't duplicate effort.

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Issues

JS: Actually that first link is more a list of high-level issues. The second is a more detailed list of individual issues.

MH: Will work on media.

KF: 7/15 is deadline, and hard deadline of 8/3. These are extremely important, as they will definitely hold to those deadlines. PF really needs the input by 7/15. PF will write and enter the bugs, but they need our critical eyes and notes in the Wiki page (either their Wiki if we're reviewing it in response to their question, but OK to put things we raise into our page, where it will...
... eventually be folded into theirs).
... Step 1, pick a section. Step 2, review existing issue list. Step 3, raise new issues you find per Jeanne's email.

GL: We should append to each item in our wiki page a link or ID for the corresponding item in PF's, so we can tell which have been migrated and which have not.

<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to draft a step-by-step description of making comments on HTML5. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-568 - Draft a step-by-step description of making comments on HTML5. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-06-16].

User AgentDefinition Discussion – 20 minutes max

JR: ATAG is getting the same message/request, but will not be doing as much as a group.

KF: Mark started a discussion in email about possibly revising the definition of user agent.

SH: Noted that we had a lengthy discussion this back in 2009 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009OctDec/0012.html)

JS: This is a timely discussion because it's come up in W3C at two separate meetings, where she's been asked by groups how UAWG views designing "user agents".
... Question of whether the definition is too browser centric.
... Also asked about redefining user agents to exclude assistive technologies. We had said for purposes of UAAG, assistive technologies are not user agents. This served several purposes, including not requiring AT to be forced to follow all accessibility guidelines because they specialize on individual disabilities, and could not do their job if had to address all disabilities. Also, they...
... typically do not render the content, but modify the content that is rendered by other user agents. HOWEVER she thinks that decision may have been accidentally edited out of the recent drafts of UAAG20.

MH: Question of whether AT will have to process HTML at some level.

JR: Feels most important argument is that AT can specialize, second is that UA should not be able to punt on issues by relegating it to AT.

MH: Feels the discussion needs to be had. His comments in email reflect his current thinking.

JS: Mark's and Simon's comments on that thread have been forwarded to the WCAG list.
... Requests a formally written item she can include in the next survey.

KF: Will try to draft something from the next call.

SH: Thinking about things like Google Docs that are online, how would they comply to operating system standards? Would we say the web is an OS of a sorts and thus the app would have to comply to the Web's standards?

JR: Google Docs is an example of an authoring tool, and ATAG has requirements for supporting specific technologies.

KF: Had concept of Web-based and non-Web-based user agents, a concept borrowed from ATAG, but in discussing it we found it less needed in UAAG.
... Also interesting is the bigger user agent than traditional browser (e.g. OS or OS UI), but also smaller user agents (e.g. most mobile apps ultimately render web content).

<jeanne> I think we moved web based to the standards section - I think it is Principle 5

<jeanne> +1 that smaller web apps need to comply with UAWG

KF: If the app only uses an OS-level tool to render their HTML, are they user agents? If we ask for features in their UA UI that aren't really applicable?

JS: Such features wouldn't be applicable to media players, either, but we've tried to put in if statements to make sure the success criteria are scoped correctly. Perhaps Kim could have review those to make sure they're all correct.

KP: Sure, will help.

KF: Perhaps wording explicitly mentioning extreme examples of user agents.

<Jan> Any software (or collection of software components) that can be used by authors (alone or collaboratively) to create or modify web content for use by other people (other authors or end users).

JR: Reads the definition from ATAG.

<jeanne> filling out a FexEx tracking page is NOT an authoring tool

JR: UA is something that renders web technology into something presented to users.

GL: Question of whether an application using services from another layer, and that layer (e.g. OS dialog presentation) changes to use a Web technology, does your application suddenly become a user agent?

KF: InstaPaper tool strips off most of the junk on a web page, showing only the main article.

<jeanne> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/instapaper/id288545208?mt=8

<kford> Instapaper - http://www.instapaper.com/

JR: It's not affecting other people, so not an authoring tool. It plays a role in user agent experience so would be a user agent.

GL: Anything that gets into the stream between a server's hard drive and the user, modifying the content (e.g. via html or dom) would be a user agent component, although since it's not a full browser should not have to do all the user agent user interface features, as they would not be applicable.

JR: Useful to examine the entire process, e.g. authoring process, or browsing process.

GL: Very useful to include list of things which are and are not user agents, and why.

KP: Good to put that on the Wiki.

<jeanne> I will set it up

GL: Once set up, anyone please add examples even if you can't yet answer the question of whether they are or are not user agents.

Continue work on IER items needing content

<kford> IER Items:

<kford> 1.9.2-1.9.11 - focus

<kford> 1.11.2. Link info

<kford> 2.7.4 Direct navigation (?)

<kford> 2.7.6 direct Activation (?)

<kford> 2.7.7 Configure Set of Important Elements (?) 2.9.3, 4, 7- 2.9.12 Content control

GL: Greg and Kim wrote IER for 1.9, which are in the Keyboard, Focus and Navigation Restructuring page on the Wiki, although all have been renumbered now.

JS: Version control problems resulted in the latest draft posted not reflecting the correct latest edits.

KF: Therefore we'll end the meeting early. Jeanne and Kim will work on figuring out the version control problems.

rssagent, draft minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to draft a step-by-step description of making comments on HTML5. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/06/09 18:13:35 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/conference fees./conference fees and travel costs./
Succeeded: s/MH/JR/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Greg
Inferring Scribes: Greg
Default Present: +1.425.883.aaaa, kford, Jeanne, Jan, +1.425.895.aabb, sharper, Greg, Mark_Hakkinen, +1.508.877.aacc, +1.617.325.aadd, Kim
Present: +1.425.883.aaaa kford Jeanne Jan +1.425.895.aabb sharper Greg Mark_Hakkinen +1.508.877.aacc +1.617.325.aadd Kim
Regrets: Jim
Found Date: 09 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/09-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: jeanne

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]