User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

16 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log


Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Wayne, Kim_Patch, Jan
Mark, Kelly
JimAllan, KellyFord


<trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012

<Kford> Only have irc and likely more reading than talking trying this with phone on plane.

<JAllan> scribe: greg

New Working draft!

Planned for one draft before last call draft, but Judy would like the next published draft to include our work on levels, allowing us to get feedback on the approach. Thus won't publish before CSUN.

Jeanne: We'll include our draft prioritization and a brief introduction to the methodology, rather than all the tables we're using to develop the priorities.

<Wayne> http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/Feasibility.html

<Wayne> http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/ExecSum.html

Jeanne: presented an overview of our approach to CG meeting. Feedback that we need to be very careful about using language that people in the community are sensitive to, e.g. medical model (e.g. "severity"), comparing disabilities against each other, ensure all groups treated fairly, etc.
... Clearly we can't use simple math to combine all the rating criteria, such as averaging the numbers. Like approach of min, max, and mean.

Kim: And anything with a 5 (highest) for any group needs to be a 5.

<JAllan> the highest point value in any column becomes the value for that SC

Wayne: need to think about method for catching errors more robustly than other standards, sure we'll overlook some issues.
... Good process to review all the priorities, thinking about them objectively.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiiGLIaAlHSKdHNrcGNacUp2MHdXQW9sUmpBQ21Lenc&hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0

<Kford> Do we want to think about any limits on the total number of level A items we want?

<JAllan> the highest point value in any user barrier column becomes the barrier value for that SC, then we factor in the already implemented or the feasibility/effort to meet the SC

<JAllan> to reach the final ranking

Kim: Likes Kelly's idea of everyone voting for a certain number of items to be Level A. Everyone has a few that they think are key.

<JAllan> greg: take the high of the impact column, then take the feasibility (should be the ultimate arbiter- if it is not reasonable to implement it won't be)

Wayne: Anything that's implemented from the DOM is feasible, even if not implemented yet and so may require add-ons.
... E.g. no excuse for user agent to not implement intent of WCAG 2.0.
... That is, even if not implemented, if we know it's not hard to implement, we can still require it.
... E.g. the SC talking about labels associated with form information, or table structure analysis.

Jeanne: Any real example of something about WCAG that browsers can implement and don't?

<JAllan> greg: so the browser could create an interactive outline, or breadcrumb.

Jim brings us back on topic, schedule of next working draft.

wayne's executive summary for UAAG and Mobile http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/ExecSum.html

Jim: Wayne's draft is great, although intro might be more lofty than what we can accomplish at this time.
... WCAG might not be able to to "the" mobile guidelines.
... Will take Wayne's draft and work on it.

(Discussion of Wayne's work on style sheets, with lots of interest in the working group.)

Wayne: Struck by how mobile devices are a good test of modalities outside the desktop.

Discussion on guideline levels - FILL OUT SPREADSHEET, so we can make decisions on Thursday.

<JAllan> modality independence = input/output methodology

Jim: Recommending everyone who hasn't filling in data yet should.

Discussion of new convention of putting your own ratings in cells with your initials, e.g. if you disagree with the "3" add ", KP: 4", etc.

Jan notes that it's a huge number of cells to review.

Jim: Putting in examples, extensions, etc. are important.
... Simon sent to the list the summary of a study done at U. Manchester about how people with low dexterity and low vision mirror the same barriers that mobile users have interacting with content.

Kim: The rows where columns have different numbers are those we should talk about.
... Also put in any disagreements for discussion.
... @ are used to indicate things that need to be worked on; take them off if you fill in empty cells with numbers you feel good about.

Wayne: Doing definitely/definitely not/maybe voting helps narrow down lists quickly.

Discussion of ways of getting to a reasonable number of Level A SC.

Jeanne: The current spreadsheet is a reasonable methodology for producing priorities that we can justify and explain.

Kim: Can anyone do the audio-related columns?

Jim: Put some in those columns.
... His thinking evolved as he went down the rows, through practice and further thought.

Jan: If you find two that interfere with each other, might look into combining them.

Wayne: Often a set of SC work together, leaving out any one breaks the entire thing for some people.

Kim: Big example for her is if she can customize keyboard shortcuts and distribute them to other users, she can work around a lot of problems, making other SC less important.

Jim: Mark found examples of non-standardized gestures.

Kim: Also speech input becoming more widely implemented but totally nonstandardized.

<JAllan> Mark: A concern I have is that there is not enough recognition of the ways in which the phones can or should augment the UA with sensor capabilities to adapt the UI and content presentation.

Kim: That means it takes a lot of cognitive space.

Jeanne: When rating, she used 5 as "no access to the info", 4 as "requires expertise", etc. (She'll expand later.)

<jeanne> 5 - no access, 4 -requires expert knowledge to access, 3 -hard or slow to accomplish task, 2 - makes it easier or more efficient, 1 - nice to have

Wayne: a person who can read individual characters at huge size, but it's too slow to be considered functional literacy.

Kim: Similarly using speech to control the mouse pointer allows one to do almost anything, but so slowly that you can't use it effectively for real work.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/16 19:12:49 $

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: greg
Inferring ScribeNick: Greg
Default Present: Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Wayne, Kim_Patch, Jan
Present: Jeanne Jim_Allan Greg_Lowney Wayne Kim_Patch Jan
Regrets: Mark Kelly
Found Date: 16 Feb 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]