See also: IRC log
cross reference this with 1.8.6, 1.8.7
topic 3.4.2
greg: this is in ISO
<greg> Jan is correct that this should only include things the UA does, not things the content does that the UA cannot know about.
this is different that checkbox behavior
<Jan> http://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_form_radio
<greg> ISO 9241-171 includes 9.3.14 Separate keyboard navigation and activation:
<greg> Software shall allow users to move the keyboard focus without triggering any effects other than the presentation of information (e.g. scrolling or pop-ups that do not change the focus or selection). An explicit keystroke or similar user action shall be provided to trigger any other user-initiated effect.
big discussion.
kelly: software does not work this way
kim: this is a huge problem for speech input users.
if you jump to a radio button group, it will select the first one.
jan: need disclaimer for things that the ua recognizes
kelly: touch interface you see it you touch it, you select it.
kim: there is no speech control of phones because of this problem
jan: the behavior of arrowing through radio buttons should select them. but can CTRL arrow to not select.
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#radiobutton
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-ua-irc.html
<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2011
<scribe> scribe: jallan
kelly: reviewing agenda
<kford> Latest draft.
<kford> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20111104/MasterUAAG20111104.html
greg: details of how to support this are in other SC. 411 may be considered redundant...or
kim: it sets the stage.
<greg> Kelly is concerned that 4.1.1 Platform Accessibility Architecture is vague.
<greg> Greg says it could b considered redundant to the other 4.1.x that require platform accessibility API usage.
<Jan> FYI: ATAG2 says: A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services: Non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform accessibility services. (Level A)
jim asks about current a11y architecture support in current browsers
411 OK
jim +1 to ATAG communication
js: web-based players (embedded) may be talking to the a11y arch. directly
<Jan> Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success criteria require authoring tools to make certain information programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that the platform does not include a...
greg: in ISO scoped the beginning of this section. If you are on a platform that does not have an a11y arch. then this does not apply
<Jan> ...platform accessibility service.
<greg> ISO 9241-171 8.5.1 General: The provisions in this section are intended to provide the information and programmatic access needed by assistive technologies to help users access and use software. These provisions only apply to systems that allow installation of assistive technology or where AT will be installed in conjunction with the software. They are not applicable to closed systems (see 7.2).
make it a no add a scoping note at the top of the document.
<greg> General scoping/exception for SC that are not relevant to your platform (e.g. color on audio output, AT compat on closed systems).
kf: where the platform support an platform a11y api then use it, if you don't support it you must make one.
<scribe> ACTION: kelly to write a scoping NOTE about Guideline 4.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-647 - Write a scoping NOTE about Guideline 4.1 [on Kelly Ford - due 2011-11-11].
<Jan> ACTION: JR to propose a conformance applicability note re: platform and device constratins (eg. lacking platform accessibility service, monochrome screen) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-648 - Propose a conformance applicability note re: platform and device constratins (eg. lacking platform accessibility service, monochrome screen) [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-11].
kelly: votes no, concept is good, lmay not be right bulleted list
mh: could agree
kelly: other platforms may have these but called other names, or the may have others that are also necessary
kf: the list may need to be different.
jan: the list is prescriptive.
kf: goal is that the user can determine what something is and how to use it
gl: goal - ua and generated content...should be in the dom, other spec were ambigious
kf: msaa uses these labels, UI automation has different names and concepts.
<scribe> ACTION: kelly to rewrite in modern terms (genericize) 4.1.2 with greg [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-649 - Rewrite in modern terms (genericize) 4.1.2 with greg [on Kelly Ford - due 2011-11-11].
<greg> That is, being specific avoids having user agents failing to implement minimal things because the spec is too vague, the example being UA faiing to expose generated content just like they don't copy it to the clipboard.
jeanne, jan, kelly +1
jan: some cool drag/drop interface can make it work in platform a11y api,
all ok
jim: generated content does not appear in the DOM
kf: need to check in HTML 5
<scribe> ACTION: jim to review generated css content in html5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-650 - Review generated css content in html5 [on Jim Allan - due 2011-11-11].
jan: didn't ARIA say they did not
want write
... AT wants to check a check box, don't send command to the
UA, write to the DOM
there is an action and issues related to this
all NO
<greg> The title doesn't match the body of the SC, which is not related to write access.
kelly: this needs work, to specific
kf: stem is vague
jan: reviews the content
kf: is this the right laundry
list. what is general goal.
... classic argument. the ADA was passed before the internet so
it doesent apply
gl: the list is a minimum,
... if you want to argue that it be vague, then how to check
compliance
mh: similar to 412, perhaps remove and beef up 412
kf: +1
<scribe> ACTION: kelly to combine 412 and 416, with Mark [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-651 - Combine 412 and 416, with Mark [on Kelly Ford - due 2011-11-11].
short discussion of msaa, IA2, UIA, other platforms
jan: the items in 416 are very basic, and won't go away
kf: we don't want to leave anything out
gl: need a balance.
jan: does this need to be
said
... what is the rate...10 milliseconds? it is vague
gl: efficiency, 200 api calls.
kf: leave it in, an easy win
jan: testing compliance, do you name the AT and record time?
gl: say something in the intent on how we expect it to be tested. new update to the screen,
kp: we do speed tests with speech software. this is important
on of the most practical tests is cursor blink rate (max of 2)
kf: this is tough to measure.
editors note applies to this
gl: not convinced for the need for this.
jan: you need to be able to move focus to nested UA.
gl: it does not say this.
<greg> that is, I think things have to implemented this way regardless of accessibility concerns.
js: john are there nested UA in mobile
john: yes, moving toward nested
UA.
... flash, get out of UA, open new app (Flash) then runs
content. if you close browser, the flash wont close
jan: there are implementations that this is not true.
discussion 421-3
gl: 423 very necessary - return
focus
... if nested, should return
kf: need review,
gl: 422 user can do something, 423 UA can do something.
422 implies 423
related to 212, 213, 221, 222
killing 423
return focus
need to review the GL2 items before setting action for 421, 422
<greg> We might end up moving 4.2.2 Retrieve Focus but note it's not just about keyboard.
<Jan> ATAG2: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform.
every platforms has a11y guidelines, follow them
kelly: borrow ATAG language
<Jan> A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A)
Non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform
john: is this really necessary
gl: windows a11y guidelines say have underline letters, if a UA doesn't do this, you are getting a pessimal experience
john: it is users choice to
install a browser.
... the way it is written, sounds like it could apply to non
UAs
jan: we have a definition of a UA
shadi: definition of UA. big
concerns. Inherited from WCAG...UA anything that renders
webcontent...webcontent is anything that is rendered in a
browser
... definition of extension and AT are very similar
definitions are not clear.
3 types of user agents
<greg> John has a valid concern that our SC should not prevent the user from getting the experience they want, e.g. if the user wants a browser that gives a more Mac-like experience even on Windows (e.g. no underlined access keys) they should be able to have that. Thus we use a lot of language about user choice rather than requiring "always" behaviors.
jan: we may decide, scope it to only be desktop
shadi: why
jan: don't need web-based UA, because they fall under WCAG
shadi: functional requirements
need to be the same.
... AT that renders web content to help the user
kelly: webanywhere,
shadi: NPII, more webbased tools,
part of the tools that will be used
... the more definitions you have the more stuff can fall
between the cracks
jan: UAAG has 100+ SC, don't expect from every browser.
shadi: web-based UA, interaction is not passed directly from the UA
<greg> Jim: notes that single purpose airline scheduling apps on his phone talks via internet to a specific server to get specific information, displays a very limited set of data, is it a user agent? Some say yes, some no it's a web service.
kelly: similar to 332
js: propose using ATAG wording
Non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform
stem change: Follow A11y Guidelines
gl: there may be conflicts with other guidelines. should have something in the doc, that says if there are conflicts UAAG overrules
john: problems with that. 3rd
party developers. may not be familiar with all the platform
spec, let alone UAAG guidelines.
... who decides whats a conflict.
... understand why it is here....
... creates a lot of cases where it hurts the user.
jan: don't agree where UAAG should overrule...
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) Found Scribe: jallan Inferring ScribeNick: jallan Present: Kelly Mark Jim Greg Kim Jeanne Jan John Found Date: 04 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jim jr kelly[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]