IRC log of ua on 2012-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:44:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
16:44:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:44:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:44:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ua
16:44:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
16:44:48 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
16:44:49 [trackbot]
Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16:44:49 [trackbot]
Date: 13 September 2012
16:53:07 [kford]
Agenda+ Levels Discussion
16:53:09 [kford]
16:53:10 [kford]
Agenda+ Finish off 2.8
16:53:12 [kford]
16:55:28 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
16:55:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.883.aaaa
16:58:45 [Zakim]
16:59:23 [Zakim]
- +1.425.883.aaaa
16:59:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.883.aabb
17:01:29 [KimPatch]
KimPatch has joined #ua
17:02:00 [kford]
Regrets: Greg
17:02:06 [Jan]
Jan has joined #ua
17:02:11 [Jan]
zakim, code?
17:02:11 [Zakim]
the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Jan
17:02:25 [Zakim]
17:03:08 [Zakim]
17:03:30 [Jan]
zakim, ??P15 is really Jan
17:03:30 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
17:04:34 [mhakkinen]
mhakkinen has joined #ua
17:05:31 [sharper]
sharper has joined #ua
17:05:44 [sharper]
zakim, code?
17:05:44 [Zakim]
the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, sharper
17:06:21 [mhakkinen]
will be calling in but wrapping up another call first.
17:08:00 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #ua
17:09:00 [Zakim]
17:10:18 [kford]
zakim, agenda?
17:10:18 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
17:10:20 [Zakim]
1. Levels Discussion [from kford]
17:10:20 [Zakim]
2. Finish off 2.8 [from kford]
17:10:29 [kford]
zakim, tajke up item 1
17:10:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'tajke up item 1', kford
17:10:36 [kford]
zakim, take up item 1
17:10:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Levels Discussion" taken up [from kford]
17:11:31 [Zakim]
17:11:35 [sharper]
zakim, ??P19 is sharper
17:11:35 [Zakim]
+sharper; got it
17:12:01 [KimPatch]
Kelly: levels discussion -- try and make progress and close down on some of that. We tried a couple of approaches. We had a spreadsheet we were trying to use to list our various rules for setting out criteria for levels and we've had similar discussions around how we're going to set the levels. We need to revisit the levels in order to call ourselves done and make sure we feel comfortable...
17:12:02 [KimPatch]
...with them.
17:12:46 [KimPatch]
Kelly: Gut check from everyone -- how do you feel about the levels in the document today-- do you feel everything's pretty close, not, or no clue
17:13:09 [KimPatch]
Jan: haven't read it for the levels in a while, so don't know
17:13:10 [KimPatch]
Simon: same for me
17:14:04 [Jan]
17:14:10 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: WICAG does not have standards for levels, and that has caused problems, lawmakers need something to point to
17:14:40 [KimPatch]
Jan: ATAG we don't -- just talk about the kinds of factors that go into the decision
17:15:09 [KimPatch]
Jan: it's really complicated and sometimes different for different SC's
17:15:59 [KimPatch]
Jan: what they did in Ontario -- takes all of WICAG up to double-A, but dump out live captions and video descriptions
17:16:49 [KimPatch]
Jan: if we know that governments will be balancing different things -- our levels may not exactly line up with what they might have in mind for their legislative priorities
17:17:26 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: if WICAG had had something well written that could have been pointed to that might not have happened. If we can write it we should. I'd like to try
17:18:21 [KimPatch]
Jan: the wall that WICAG ran into use somewhere you're going to get where you have to balance different groups of people against each other -- you may say something is really important for this group, maybe even low hanging fruit, but then this thing that's really important for another group of people, maybe a small group of people but it's really really expensive were going to say you don't...
17:18:23 [KimPatch]
...have to do that, and it's going to be right there in black and white
17:18:34 [KimPatch]
Jim: technical ability versus needs and there's got to be a give somewhere and it can be ugly when you put it down on paper
17:20:10 [KimPatch]
Kelly: here's where the challenge comes in -- the biggest thing that every time I've been involved in any effort to set accessibility priorities, which is really what we are trying to do here -- there's two things that I see happen. The disability constituencies in the group that are setting the priorities tend to get more of their needs rated higher. Two, overall the priorities never are...
17:20:12 [KimPatch]
...willing to put the hard decisions down on paper that say basically we're making a choice to cut this group of people off because were going to lower priority for this item and put in those stark of terms --
17:20:32 [KimPatch]
Kelly: because as soon as you do using that small population, I can just as easily make that decision and say the whole population is small
17:21:10 [KimPatch]
Kelly: we spent a lot of time talking about it and came up with an elaborate formula
17:21:21 [KimPatch]
Kim: five criteria from the spreadsheet
17:21:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.734.aacc
17:22:13 [KimPatch]
Kelly: I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but... for me, and you can't defend it to a lawmaker, for me the way priorities get set most often is take a group of people who really understand the subject matter and make a judgment. Maybe that doesn't work. But that's how everything I've ever done ultimately -- I don't care what rules
17:22:44 [KimPatch]
Jan: that's ATAG tried to do
17:23:00 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: I think that's what we should do -- these are the factors we are trying to balance
17:23:59 [jeanne]
17:25:02 [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
17:26:34 [jeanne]
Deterministic vs. Inferntial/ minor or major change/ number of current implementations
17:26:58 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: that's what we were trying to balance when we did our spreadsheet.
17:28:00 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: so level A if there requires access or if it requires expert knowledge to access , it's deterministic and it's a minor change and there are current implementations
17:28:40 [KimPatch]
Kelly: at least one problem with even at that we have to address. When you say no access there's an implied clause there that isn't in writing -- no access for who
17:28:49 [KimPatch]
Kelly: is that really something you're willing to be put in writing
17:29:21 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: I think we have to be careful with how we write it -- the way we were scoring itno access for a number of groups of disabilities not how many people, but how many groups of people with disabilities did it affect
17:30:01 [KimPatch]
Kelly: is 100 groups of one more important than one group of 100?
17:30:03 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: yes because we are trying to protect the minorities
17:30:26 [KimPatch]
Jan: to rephrase Kelly's question 100 groups of one versus one group of 1 million, I guarantee that those 100 groups of one, were probably not going to hit too many of those. They are pretty big outliers.
17:30:47 [KimPatch]
Kelly: I recognize that, using that as an extreme example
17:31:41 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: I would prefer to dodge that as much as possible, but it is our responsibility to look out for minority groups
17:31:43 [KimPatch]
Jan: let's just go through the document rather than ahead of time spending time on the words that will justify our actions
17:33:18 [KimPatch]
Kelly: my real concern is that I'm not sure we can put in writing anything that we won't spend a lot of time revisiting. What's the total number of success criteria?
17:33:20 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: 110
17:33:21 [KimPatch]
Kelly: What if we look at each one for one minute and made quick decisions -- it would take one meeting.
17:35:00 [KimPatch]
Kim: quickly go through, useful for sharing why's
17:35:37 [KimPatch]
Kelly: spreadsheet was complicated. we already have the why's, that's the whole point of the iintents
17:36:09 [KimPatch]
Jan: what's written down in the intents are good, spreadsheet complicated
17:36:31 [KimPatch]
Jan: if we can go through each one, take a minute for each one
17:37:10 [KimPatch]
Kelly: how would people feel if we took 30 minutes trying that approach once?
17:38:14 [KimPatch]
Kim: yes
17:38:15 [KimPatch]
Jim: just as long as we go through them quickly
17:38:16 [mhakkinen]
17:39:39 [kford]
17:41:23 [jeanne]
17:42:32 [jeanne]
17:44:04 [KimPatch]
reading through SC's, noting only if anyone thinks something should be changed
17:46:56 [KimPatch]
Starting at 1.1.1
17:48:35 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: note on 1.1.3 there are some media where the captions are built-in like subtitles where they are in the movie and can't be moved
17:48:48 [KimPatch]
will discuss later
17:50:16 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: level problem -- maybe AAA
17:50:58 [KimPatch]
Jan: not all of the things that need to be underlined are in the draft yet, so maybe one recognized is underlined that might be enough
17:51:28 [KimPatch]
Starting at 1.2.1
17:52:20 [mhakkinen]
no objection
17:52:40 [KimPatch]
Jan: this is repair -- AA?
17:52:41 [KimPatch]
Kelly: I could go down to AA to
17:52:50 [KimPatch]
no objections
17:53:22 [KimPatch]
1.1.2 should go down to AA
17:53:59 [KimPatch]
Correction: 1.2.1 should go down to AA
17:54:00 [mhakkinen]
17:54:17 [KimPatch]
17:54:37 [KimPatch]
Jan: you're going to infer the relationship should go down to AA
17:54:45 [KimPatch]
Kelly: any objections:
17:55:05 [KimPatch]
no objections
17:55:06 [KimPatch]
1.2.2 should go down to AA
17:55:50 [KimPatch]
1.3.1 -- no change
17:56:12 [KimPatch]
17:57:26 [KimPatch]
Jan: the issue there is for elements with alternative content should it fail if it doesn't provide borders with alternative thickness?
17:57:28 [KimPatch]
Kelly: do we separate them or lower the whole priority?
17:57:35 [mhakkinen]
17:57:42 [KimPatch]
Jim: could go with AA
17:58:11 [KimPatch]
no objections
17:58:13 [KimPatch]
1.3.2 should go down to AA
17:59:21 [KimPatch]
1.4.1 -- no change
17:59:57 [KimPatch]
1.4.2 -- no change
18:01:48 [KimPatch]
rethinking 1.4.2 Jan: would a system fail if it didn't wipe out the distinctions in the size of header text -- because I would be against that. I don't think it's a level a that user agents have to have a mode in which the zoom does not have to preserve size distinctions, so I think we have to remove the whether or not to keep it a level a? Is there a reason for washing away the size distinction?
18:02:23 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: yes that's what Wayne was talking about -- he redefines what the style looks like -- people with very large type it won't even fit into the screen
18:02:33 [KimPatch]
Jan: it doesn't have to be an option checkbox somewhere in the options
18:02:48 [KimPatch]
Jim: so where does the responsibility fall -- browser or user
18:03:00 [KimPatch]
Jan: we already have user stylesheets
18:04:48 [KimPatch]
1.4.2 Should discuss later -- maybe with Wayne's input
18:05:52 [KimPatch]
1.5.1 -- no change
18:06:37 [KimPatch]
1.6.1 -- no change
18:08:19 [KimPatch]
18:08:20 [KimPatch]
MH: are there some higher-quality engines that don't allow you to adjust pitch? I'm almost afraid we would downgrade some of the better voice options because of that
18:09:28 [KimPatch]
Jan: engines provided by platform services
18:09:48 [KimPatch]
MH: do some quick research on, and maybe just add a note to it
18:10:27 [KimPatch]
MH: I think we can leave it as long as we qualify or not excluding some high quality engines because of that
18:11:30 [KimPatch]
1.6.3 we could use that language in a note for 1.6.2
18:11:33 [jeanne]
action: jeanne to add a note to 1.6.2 to insure that high quality speech engines are not excluded for pitch. Assigned to Mark
18:11:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-758 - Add a note to 1.6.2 to insure that high quality speech engines are not excluded for pitch. Assigned to Mark [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2012-09-20].
18:11:37 [KimPatch]
1.6.3 -- no change
18:13:34 [KimPatch]
1.6.4 -- no change
18:15:53 [KimPatch]
1.7.1 -- no change
18:17:26 [KimPatch]
1.7.2 -- no change
18:18:33 [KimPatch]
1.7.3 -- no change
18:19:23 [KimPatch]
1.7.4 -- no change
18:20:30 [KimPatch]
1.8.1 -- no change
18:23:41 [KimPatch]
KimPatch has joined #ua
18:25:18 [KimPatch]
Jan: 1.3.2 AA, 1.8.1 single A combines that. If current focus was one of the 1.3.1 highlighting items than 1.3.2 would refer to it
18:26:22 [KimPatch]
Jim: but if it's up to the user to decide -- white background etc. they can do that, but if you put viewport up in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 then we can eliminate
18:26:33 [KimPatch]
Jan: but viewports are a different animal
18:26:46 [KimPatch]
Jan: is there reason for the second sentence -- nested containers -- what does that add?
18:27:09 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: I think it was just there to clarify what is nested
18:28:09 [KimPatch]
1.8.1 -- no change
18:28:30 [mhakkinen]
18:28:34 [KimPatch]
1.8.2 -- no change
18:29:21 [KimPatch]
Kelly: in roughly 45 minutes we move through a fair number of these -- do we want to use more meeting time to do this or do people want to read them off-line?
18:29:34 [KimPatch]
Kelly: probably going to take one more full meeting and probably a little of another to get through all of them
18:30:01 [KimPatch]
one sixth of the document in half the meeting time
18:30:20 [KimPatch]
Kelly: everyone good with it?
18:30:22 [KimPatch]
No objections
18:30:26 [Zakim]
18:30:44 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:30:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
18:30:57 [Zakim]
- +1.425.883.aabb
18:30:58 [Zakim]
- +1.609.734.aacc
18:31:02 [Zakim]
18:31:03 [Zakim]
18:31:04 [Zakim]
18:31:08 [Zakim]
18:31:09 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended
18:31:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.425.883.aaaa, Jim_Allan, +1.425.883.aabb, Kim_Patch, Jan, Jeanne, sharper, +1.609.734.aacc
18:32:11 [kford]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:32:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kford
18:33:39 [kford]
Present: Kelly, Jan, Jim, Kim, Jeanne, Simon, Mark
18:33:48 [kford]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:33:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kford
18:34:15 [kford]
Chair: Kelly_Ford, Jim_Alan
18:34:21 [kford]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:34:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kford
18:35:46 [kford]
zakim, please part
18:35:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ua
18:36:07 [kford]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:36:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kford
18:36:15 [kford]
rrsagent, please part
18:36:15 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
18:36:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jeanne to add a note to 1.6.2 to insure that high quality speech engines are not excluded for pitch. Assigned to Mark [1]
18:36:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in