IRC log of ua on 2012-12-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:51:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
17:51:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:51:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:51:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ua
17:51:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
17:51:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
17:51:39 [trackbot]
Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
17:51:39 [trackbot]
Date: 20 December 2012
17:56:39 [kford]
kford has joined #ua
17:56:53 [kford]
zakim, agenda?
17:56:53 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
17:58:06 [JAllan]
JAllan has joined #ua
17:58:11 [kford]
Agenda+ wrapping up levels - send level proposals to the list.
17:58:14 [kford]
Agenda+ Winter Break
17:58:15 [kford]
Agenda+ definition of levels - Jeanne
17:58:17 [kford]
Agenda+ resolving @@ from the draft.
17:58:19 [kford]
Agenda+ Action items 2 outstanding
17:58:28 [kford]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:58:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kford
17:58:35 [JAllan]
regrets: simon, mark
17:59:10 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
17:59:17 [Zakim]
18:01:02 [Zakim]
18:01:29 [Zakim]
18:02:06 [Greg]
Greg has joined #ua
18:02:28 [Zakim]
18:03:39 [Jan]
Jan has joined #ua
18:03:56 [Jan]
zakim, code?
18:03:56 [Zakim]
the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Jan
18:04:28 [Zakim]
18:04:41 [Zakim]
18:05:46 [KimPatch]
KimPatch has joined #ua
18:06:00 [JAllan]
chair: jimallan, kellyford
18:06:14 [Zakim]
18:07:07 [Zakim]
18:07:20 [kford]
zakim, microsoft is kford
18:07:20 [Zakim]
+kford; got it
18:08:13 [JAllan]
new editors draft:
18:08:45 [JAllan]
zakim, agenda
18:08:45 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'agenda', JAllan
18:08:54 [JAllan]
zakim, agenda?
18:08:54 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
18:08:55 [Zakim]
1. wrapping up levels - send level proposals to the list. [from kford]
18:08:55 [Zakim]
2. Winter Break [from kford]
18:08:55 [Zakim]
3. definition of levels - Jeanne [from kford]
18:08:55 [Zakim]
4. resolving @@ from the draft. [from kford]
18:08:55 [Zakim]
5. Action items 2 outstanding [from kford]
18:10:56 [Zakim]
18:11:19 [Zakim]
18:11:55 [KimPatch]
Jim: end of levels discussion – if you have any more about levels send to list
18:12:51 [JAllan]
close item 1
18:13:11 [KimPatch]
Jim: winter break – I propose that we don't meet the next two Thursdays
18:13:43 [KimPatch]
general agreement
18:14:08 [JAllan]
close item 2
18:14:22 [JAllan]
open item 3
18:39:46 [JAllan]
information to come in the new year.
18:39:51 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: definition of levels – more on the first of the year
18:40:28 [JAllan]
close item 3
18:41:32 [KimPatch]
Jim: success criteria, conformance
18:41:54 [jeanne]
18:42:56 [KimPatch]
Jim: ARIA role navigation - trying to tease out whether someone did aria right is difficult
18:43:40 [KimPatch]
Jim: these are pretty minor otherwise
18:44:44 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: 2.1.3 I recommend we drop that – there are a lot of WC3 documents on compound documents
18:45:26 [JAllan]
action: jim to do 2.1.1 urls for resources
18:45:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-787 - Do 2.1.1 urls for resources [on Jim Allan - due 2012-12-27].
18:47:23 [KimPatch]
Jim: 2.1.3 is no keyboard trap, so it has to do with passing off the keyboard focus inside a compound document, which was a big thing a couple or three years ago. Maybe our examples are good enough. This is really more of the application of the keyboard trap in flash or the keyboard trap and some other embedded application which is essentially what SVG is and all the rest of that. So I would...
18:47:25 [KimPatch] okay with removing it.
18:47:55 [KimPatch]
no objections to removing related resource for 213
18:49:27 [KimPatch]
Jim: 4.1.2 2.5.3 and issue 87 which are all related to aria navigation
18:50:59 [KimPatch]
Jim: it's a AAA and this would be being able to configure landmark navigation and roles. We could add a resource, but want to avoid getting into a rats nest.
18:52:00 [KimPatch]
Jim: 2.5.1 is location and hierarchy, we have already done that. The issue is navigate by element and semantic role.
18:52:34 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: recommend we close it
18:52:35 [KimPatch]
general agreement
18:53:26 [KimPatch]
Greg: so we have a definition of structural and operable elements?
18:53:57 [KimPatch]
Greg: there does not seem to be a definition – but it's only used in summaries
18:54:05 [KimPatch]
Jim: we have important structural elements
18:54:19 [KimPatch]
Greg: structural elements is in one note and one SC, and is not defined
18:54:44 [KimPatch]
Jim: important elements is defined
18:54:45 [KimPatch]
Greg: structural elements as mentioned in the glossary under outline view
18:56:06 [KimPatch]
Greg: the term structure is used in the note with important structural elements, but the word structural there. It was changed in a note from 191 from important structural elements two important elements. The other case 252 where only in the title of the SC, and that's okay – it looks like we don't need to define it there, already in SC
18:56:40 [KimPatch]
Greg: 191 changing to important in the note, 252 we can just leave it
18:56:47 [KimPatch]
Jim: 253 can be marked as done
18:57:21 [KimPatch]
Greg: however I do know that the term structural navigation is used – closest thing in the glossary is structural navigation command – that's probably okay
18:58:00 [KimPatch]
Jim: I think we are good
18:58:41 [KimPatch]
Greg: so we can close action 500
18:59:05 [JAllan]
close action-500
18:59:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-500 Kim And Greg to draft definition of Structural and Operable elements closed
18:59:13 [Zakim]
18:59:21 [JAllan]
close action-545
18:59:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-545 SC and EIR for 2.5.1 Provide structural navigation [new] closed
18:59:36 [Zakim]
19:00:09 [Zakim]
19:00:54 [JAllan]
close item 4
19:01:02 [JAllan]
open item 5
19:01:15 [JAllan]
topic: partial conformance
19:01:34 [Jan]
19:01:53 [KimPatch]
Jan: action to propose a type of partial conformance for mobile apps
19:03:04 [KimPatch]
Jan: example, airline app on your phone and it uses the whole browser window to display only the current state of your flight, the name of the flight where it's from and if it's running late and by how long – something like that. Even though it is a full browser window potentially it knows where it's receiving data from – but basically it's not getting just any old image from the web.the...
19:03:06 [KimPatch]
...proposal was at a partial UN 2.0 conformance level
19:03:09 [Jan]
Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Constrained Content (Level A, AA, or AAA)
19:03:10 [Jan]
19:03:12 [Jan]
This conformance option may be selected when the user agent is deployed such that it can only be used to display a tightly constrained set of content (e.g. as part of a mobile app that only displays text messages). The conformance claim must list those success criteria which are judged not applicable due to the nature of the constrained content.
19:04:26 [jeanne]
action: jeanne to add "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" to the bibliography.
19:04:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-788 - Add "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" to the bibliography. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2012-12-27].
19:04:38 [KimPatch]
Jan: in theory this is a browser that could display time-based but it never will –because of the content we don't have to make this
19:04:51 [Zakim]
19:04:54 [KimPatch]
Greg: where would this be in the conformance section
19:05:23 [KimPatch]
Jan: would say is claiming partial conformance to UAAG, and claiming partial conformance based on constrained content
19:05:56 [KimPatch]
Jan: right now there's no section but in ATAG you can see how they are done
19:06:06 [Jan]
19:06:44 [KimPatch]
Jan: the intro text is out of date – two types of levels, regular and partial
19:07:12 [KimPatch]
Jan: regular, 3 A levels, then two types of partial.
19:07:15 [Jan]
19:07:36 [KimPatch]
Jan: we got this from WCAG – here's how they do it
19:08:15 [KimPatch]
Greg: ATAG has levels, WCAG has requirements
19:08:54 [KimPatch]
Jan: H3– at the same level. The point is it's just a modifier, it is in full conformance, we know it's not, and here's the reason. It could be because some of the content is third-party content or the language
19:09:28 [KimPatch]
Jan: could say we are not a general content provider – it's constrained and constrained in these ways
19:09:57 [KimPatch]
Jim: works for the American airline app example – this will do a fine job
19:10:09 [KimPatch]
Jim: list of the things they are complying with a list of the things they aren't complying with:
19:10:26 [KimPatch]
Greg: they could use the same form, but simply fill in NA with explanations
19:10:45 [KimPatch]
Greg: if they are making a claim at all, which is optional. But if the claim is there do they have to list every SC?
19:10:55 [Zakim]
19:11:49 [Zakim]
19:12:57 [KimPatch]
Greg: #7 says to state whether conforms. So how is this different – requires to state, when you read through section 7 you discover that half of them are NAs
19:13:32 [Greg]
That is, section 7 in a conformance claim requires listing for every SC pass, fail, or N/A and why.
19:13:44 [KimPatch]
Jan: the browser component would not be a very good implementation of UAAG if it were by itself – for example doesn't have highlighting options for active keyboard focus, recognize enabled input elements were recently visited links – but that's okay because it knows that the only text that's going to come through and be displays is flight numbers
19:14:14 [Greg]
Thus if it knows from constrained input content that there will be no images, then every SC involving images can already be marked N/A with explanation of "because of constrained input set does not include images".
19:14:18 [JAllan]
scribe: kippatch
19:14:25 [JAllan]
scribe: kimpatch
19:14:41 [KimPatch]
Jan: if the web browser is going to display content that includes whatever those classes should be highlighted – you can just offload that entire scenario to a special type of conformance – this is not a great example because it doesn't do this stuff, but it's such constrained input that can get away with it
19:15:12 [KimPatch]
Greg: but can they already get away with it under the current method – in the list of SC's they would say NA because the constrained input does not include
19:15:44 [KimPatch]
Jan: that becomes a testing question – I don't think it was clear before
19:15:54 [KimPatch]
Jan: it's kind of an edge case that needed to be stated
19:16:01 [jeanne]
q+ to say that the other use case we wanted to solve was when the SC was solved by one platform, but not by another.
19:16:10 [KimPatch]
Greg: I'm not disagreeing necessarily, just trying to work out the implications
19:16:46 [KimPatch]
Greg: I can understand that the high level wanting them to identify that it's a different kind of case, but in practice I wouldn't want to let them out of section 7 where they list every SC and say yes no or N/A – so that I don't think should change
19:18:04 [KimPatch]
Jan: I agree – just want to make sure there's a meaningful distinction between a tool that – example a tool that does not support video – it can say not applicable to anything that has to do with video. and then this other browser complement, HTML 5 browser complement which is being used in this particular situation where it's text. I agree with you it doesn't change it all going...
19:18:06 [KimPatch]
...through the...
19:18:07 [KimPatch]
...whole document and saying yes no N/A
19:19:03 [KimPatch]
Greg: if were still going to do all the steps in the conformance claim including listing everything yes pass fail or NA, but a at a high level you want to call it out, how manyNAs does it take to make it have to be called out
19:19:29 [KimPatch]
Greg: do many user agents have a least one NA?
19:19:53 [KimPatch]
Jan: this is a very different type of browser than Internet Explorer or a Firefox where you can browse anywhere on the web
19:21:22 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: one of the other use cases that we have been talking about for partial conformance was the American Airlines app – where success criteria – conformance is coming from the platform level but it might not work on a different platform. So the American Airlines app on iOS might meet the success criteria because of features of iOS and it might not need it on the android platform or vice...
19:21:24 [KimPatch]
...versa. I believe that was one of our use cases
19:21:31 [KimPatch]
Jan: that's handled in the next type of partial – there are three types
19:22:07 [KimPatch]
Jim: must listen to all of Jan's levels and then come back and see how we can resolve Greg's issues
19:22:27 [KimPatch]
Jan: reading second one
19:22:52 [JAllan]
Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - User Agent Component (Level A, AA, or AAA)
19:22:54 [JAllan]
19:22:55 [JAllan]
This conformance option may be selected when a user agent would require additional user agent functionality in order to conform as a complete user agent. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a user agent that only lacks mouseless browsing).
19:22:57 [JAllan]
The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above except that, for any "no" answers, the user agent must not prevent the success criteria from being met by another user agent component as part of a complete user agent system.
19:22:59 [JAllan]
Note: User agents would not be able to meet partial conformance if they prevent additional user agent components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g., for security reasons).
19:23:18 [JAllan]
Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations (Level A, AA, or AAA)
19:23:20 [JAllan]
19:23:22 [JAllan]
This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service). The conformance should explain what platform features are missing.
19:23:22 [KimPatch]
Jan: this is so a browser can say I don't do muscles browsing, but some other plug-in could
19:23:44 [JAllan]
19:24:48 [KimPatch]
Jim: so you could say I need the extension in order to do full compliance
19:25:14 [KimPatch]
Jim: so you can say I meet this one success criteria and nothing else
19:26:08 [KimPatch]
Jan: yes, important because if the company says we don't want to step on the toes of the checking company… this lets everybody do it they do and do no harm to others
19:26:48 [KimPatch]
Jan: you can let a small company do only their part. You can let another company say we do everything but we don't do mouseless browsing
19:27:13 [KimPatch]
Jan: large companies don't want to have to rely on small companies for conformance
19:28:07 [KimPatch]
Greg: in terms of partial compliance – partial implementation user agent component – so in that case Firefox would claim partial compliance as a user agent component
19:28:57 [KimPatch]
Jan: yes it is a loophole, but if they are claiming user agent partial conformance and all the sudden there in some RFP and Microsoft comes in and says actually were doing a full conformance claim – either because they built all the stuff natively or maybe they did with the last-minute agree to rely on a secondary vendor, then it looks better, they have the full story to tell
19:29:36 [KimPatch]
Greg: assuming mouseless browsing is AA, they can't claim AA level?
19:30:02 [KimPatch]
Jan: they are free to claim a bundle – it's just that in the atag world we ran into strong – we don't want to
19:30:23 [KimPatch]
Greg: Where do they claim add-ons as a component?
19:30:37 [Zakim]
19:31:09 [KimPatch]
Jan: it's something that is going to have to be built into the conformance claim
19:32:28 [Greg]
In the section titled "Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim" we need to add an additional item where the claimant identifies first, or third party components that are required to meet some of the SC requirements.
19:32:41 [Greg]
For example, Firefox would list the Mouseless Browsing extension.
19:32:48 [Jan]
Analagous ATAG2 wording: "Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor, and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole."
19:33:48 [KimPatch]
Greg: ATAG wording doesn't really make it clear that some of them might be third-party components
19:35:00 [KimPatch]
Jan: we've left that unstated – what if the mouseless browsing people wrote something about themselves in the context of Firefox. It's allowed, but Firefox might not like it so we dialed it down because of that concern.
19:35:26 [KimPatch]
Jim: maybe leave them in and see if anybody complains
19:35:49 [KimPatch]
Jeanne: different situation, vendor dominated versus accessibility
19:36:07 [Zakim]
19:37:28 [JAllan]
greg: may need use cases for each of these
19:37:36 [Zakim]
19:37:46 [Zakim]
19:37:52 [Zakim]
19:37:56 [JAllan]
will take this up at the next meeting.
19:38:03 [Zakim]
19:38:04 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended
19:38:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, kford, [Microsoft]
19:42:13 [JAllan]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:42:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JAllan
19:43:16 [JAllan]
scribe: -kippatch
19:43:19 [JAllan]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:43:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JAllan
19:51:36 [JAllan]
zakim, please part
19:51:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ua
19:51:40 [JAllan]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:51:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JAllan
19:51:49 [JAllan]
rrsagent, please part
19:51:49 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
19:51:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jim to do 2.1.1 urls for resources [1]
19:51:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:51:49 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jeanne to add "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" to the bibliography. [2]
19:51:49 [RRSAgent]
recorded in