See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 February 2012
<scribe> scribe: JAllan
all: discussion of current ANPRM comments due in March
<Greg> Greg described how the Section 508 refresh incorporates WCAG 2.0 for all content and for software user interfaces.
js: above is stuff Jeanne and Kim
worked on, following Wayne's comments
... seek to improve the consistency and transparency
... with objectiveness. thought of mathematical formula.
... above only a draft. use this to evaluate current SC levels to see how they compare. tweak as needed
... 4 levels
... severity of barrier -- prevented from doing =5 ...slows=1
... number of different groups that an SC benefits. (trying to use numbers of peoples not beneficial), this needs more work
... need better taxonomy of disabilities. JTC1 has only 6 categories.
<Jan> +1 to Jim
ja: what about using functional limitations rather than disabilities
js: need to find something we can reference, to limit rangling
gl: why do we need formalized levels.
<Jan> BTW: ATAG's approach: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#intro_understand_levels_conformance
js: discussions with Judy. WCAG does not have definitions of levels, suggested ATAG and UAAG have them
jr: concerns about using groups. flashing only benefits one group
flashing is also good for cognitive and distraction issues
<sharper> Interesting ... http://www.unescap.org/stat/disability/manual/Chapter2-Disability-Statistics.asp
jr: validates Kim's statement
about rating SC based on knowledge of disability of a
... trying to elimate judgement calls, all of these things will have gray area.
kf: concerned about making rating
system public. concerned about everyone debugging it.
... its a tough problem
kp: what are each of our top 5 SC
for the group of users each of us knows best
... would be a good exercise
... so all could better judge.
<sharper> World Health Organisation International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
sh: use WHO or UNESCO
classifications. they are quantitative on a continuum
... use these metrics to define what we are talking about. WHO and others are pretty bulky, may need a subset
kp: would be good to have users read the guidelines and give their opinions
sh: large portion of AT is discarded after 3 months
<sharper> Check list is here http://www.who.int/entity/classifications/icf/training/icfchecklist.pdf
js: don't listen to what users say they want, watch then and see what they need
gl: need an exercise for justification of levels. quick review of ATAG was good.
js: 2 other areas
... existing implementions (number of)
... feasibility (deterministic vs inferential).
gl: what about things that make
things worse for a different group of user (disabled or
... e.g. a guideline says always does X, contrast level above xys, but there are people who dont need that.
... concern about negative impact average users.
js: these is good, but need to address the weight.
<jeanne> negative impact - benefits one group vs. another group (including mainstream users)
kp: depends on how it is implemented.
kf: if we use this, how do we get from todays stuff to a different criteria for levels
js: use the criteria to complete
... just try it.
kf: you and kim try it? or all of us?
js: more is better
... if you have specific concerns about SC do those
kf: don't want this to be a 3 month project.
js: RIGHT!! don't want total review, and start editing, etc.
kf: what do you need to set up the columns etc.
kp: easy to set up simple version, ping everyone.
js: need to have this done by next week.
kf: some SC have changed. the spreadsheet is out of date.
discussion of gregs converter. to generate new spreadsheet
gl: are we planning on doing the exercise, 4 columns of the criteria.
<Greg> Would be nice if your data could be converted to reader-friendly “significantly improves efficiency for people with difficulty typing” and “removes absolute barrier for people without vision”, etc.
gl: would be nice if the creiteria could be stated in human readable sentences
kp: its going to be numbers.
gl: need statements to reflect (annotate) the numbers
discussion of last weeks edits
discussion of currency of the draft to make spreadsheet
sh: lots of discussion last week
about 2.1. took actions to review. if we combine then we do a
disservice to users. all will be AAA
... add user into the mix. and combine and make it A as follows
1.2.1 In situations where missing or empty alternative content or
associations can be identified, the user agent will provide notify when
the element achieves focus, and upon their request, will relate all
available metadata to the user, enabling the user to take appropriate
sh: the UA notifies the user of a problem, its up to the user to find something to make the missing content make sense.
sh: I am recommending this
gl: a bit confused, not sure we want to dive in to it now.
sh: there will be no repair. if something is missing then tell the user, and tell user available metadata.
gl: but this would be good everywhere.
sh: then we change the wording. to say something is missing, use this other mechanism to read all the available metadata available
ja: like finding hashed passwords on the web
gl: some user click on an object to get all the metadata. this could be useful for all users.
sh: e.g. something is missing, I
can id all things complete, I need to be able to find all
things that are missing something.
... then give me all the other available info.
... agree that getting metadata on everything is good. but also need to be able to get info about objects that are missing data
ja: like this.
kf: gives the user control,
kp: this is good. human brain better at figuring somethings out.
kf: now what?
ja: just put it in the doc.
sh: let greg write up his thoughts
kf: any objections to this direction?
kf: what happens to the intents
and examples in the current doc.
... and the spreadsheet.
... as we try to lock down, we keep in mind the tail it has.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to write an SC to substitute for 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 that gives the user the ability to request the meta data available for an object, [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-712 - Write an SC to substitute for 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 that gives the user the ability to request the meta data available for an object, [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2012-02-09].
kf: we need to review this. reply to the list by end of the week.
kp: would be great if folks would write examples in the SC that apply to mobile.
gl: don't all of the SC apply to mobile?
kp: we only did the SC that apply to mobile. now we need examples
kf: WAI overall is being asked
about mobile a11y,, this is the first pass at speaking to
... jeanne was going to work on exec summary. we as a group need to say we stand behind this.
gl: should be 'mobile devices'
not just phones
... hear an issue about lack of focus
gl: important to not make global statements.
<Greg> Because there are few things that are universal to mobile devices, much less unique to them.
kp: this is a draft of things we thought applied to mobile. there is a lot that needs to be filled in.
<Greg> The document should also clearly differentiate between current status (e.g. most mobile platforms may lack a certain feature) vs. those few thing that are inherent to mobile devices or unlikely to be eventually be implemented.
kf: not going to address item 4,
rrsagent make 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) Found Scribe: JAllan Inferring ScribeNick: JAllan Default Present: Jan, Greg, Jeanne, Jim_Allan, kford, Kim_Patch, sharper Present: Greg Jeanne Kelly Jan Jim Kim Simon Regrets: Mark Found Date: 02 Feb 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]