User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

02 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log


Greg, Jeanne, Kelly, Jan, Jim, Kim, Simon
Kelly Ford, Jim Allan


<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.

Discussion on guideline levels



<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2012JanMar/0048.html

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 particular group
... 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)

<sharper> http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

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 not)
... 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 kims spreadsheet
... 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

Discuss Simon's proposal on 1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2012JanMar/0039.html

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

alternative action.

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

ja: +1

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?

none heard

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.

review mobile wiki page http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Applying_UAAG_to_Mobile_Phones

<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 mobile a11y
... 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

ja; tooltips?

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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/02 19:30:51 $

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)

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]