See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 January 2013
<allanj> new permanant links for the working drafts (no more dates!)
http://www.w3.org/2013/01/22-ua-minutes.html - new thoughts
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaste
<sharper> anyone having zakim problems
<sharper> it says 82941# is not valid
<allanj> all seems fine on this end. Jeanne is not available to fix.
<sharper> OK so not happening on viop
<allanj> that is the number I used
<allanj> Latest editor's draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/ it will always be the latest version.
<scribe> scribe: kford
<scribe> Chair: Jim_allan_Kelly Ford
JA: Just a few notes
<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0023.html from the A!!y HTML5 Taskforce
JA: Will get to EH comments next week. Three bugs from HTML task force I think we can close.
JA goes over bugs.
JA will write up comments and send to group and HTML5 task force
KP: We are going to be working on more examples next Friday 2/8 starting at 9A eastern
<allanj> Indie UI needs a review http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-indie-ui-events-20130122/
<allanj> any comments welcome
<allanj> UAAG 10 conformance http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#Conformance
JA going over history of discussion here.
<Jan> (GL's email)
<allanj> *NA:* Not Applicable:
<allanj> 1. *NA-Component:* not applicable to the limited functionality provided by this user agent component, plug-in, or extension (e.g. SC relating to rendering content would not apply to a browser extension that adds additional menu commands but does not itself render any content)
<allanj> 2. *NA-Input:* not applicable due to a constrained input set (e.g. an application that reads flight data in XML format from a corporate server, or a help system that only displays HTML files included with the product)
<allanj> 3. *NA-Platform:* not applicable due constraints of the platform (e.g. color handling when the browser is run on a monochrome device, audio handling on a silent device, video handling on a interactive voice response browser, or interprocess communication on an operating system that does not support multitasking)
<allanj> 4. *NA-Desgn:* not applicable due to intentionally limited output modalities (e.g. video handling in a browser that only does audio output even though the platform might support video)
<Greg> And there may be other acceptable reasons for a N/A answer, but they must be chosen from a limited set of allowable rationales.
Group continuing to talk about conformance, sorting out how to handle things that the user agent doesn't recognize.
JAN talks about some techniques in ATAG that basically you are only responsible for what you can control i.e. if you don't recognize it you are not able to control.
<allanj> ACTION: Jim to review 'recognized' in SC to make a top level statement similar to device independence at the beginning of the document - perhaps an applicability note. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Review 'recognized' in SC to make a top level statement similar to device independence at the beginning of the document - perhaps an applicability note. [on Jim Allan - due 2013-02-07].
<Jan> Example of ATAG 2.0 conformance applicability note: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#part_a_applic_notes
<Greg> Note that it's important to define recognized, whether it's in the Conformance section or each SC, to ensure it can't just be developer choice not to recognize something that technically they could recognize.
<allanj> what if the UA does not comply with an SC, what do they say...
<allanj> from greg: *NC:* Not Compliant:
<allanj> 1. *NC-Potential:* not compliant but in theory a third party could make it compliant using documented and supported techniques (e.g. the product's extension architecture readily allows adding the required feature; this is also allowed if the source is made available and the claimant believes it could be modified to add compliance with less than one person-week of effort, thus giving...
<allanj> ...incentive for open source
<allanj> 2. *NC-Unsupported:* may be compliant but not using documented and supported techniques
<allanj> 3. *NC-Impossible:* not compliant even with undocumented and unsupported techniques
KP: Could you say compliant as
one thing or say I'm compliant if you add other pieces.
... Or say I'm not compliant because of x.
JAN talks about cases where you don't want to name a specific extension
JA: Extensions might also go away
EH: We have a choice about how
much effort to put into full conformance versus partial.
... My guess is that if we get full right maybe the partial will fall into shape.
<allanj> you can make a conformance claim of UA versionx, with extension foo and fubb. when a new version is out a new conformance claim is necessary
KP: If we require compliance with an extension we should have a video example to see how it works.
<allanj> discussion of percentages.
<allanj> kf: percentages make it hard and complex when factoring in easy/complex SCs
JA: Seems like we have agreement on compliance as follows:
<Greg> My suggestion for telling them to include the percentage of SC for each level that they comply with, is not to substitute for what we have now ("100% of Level A" and the like) but merely to add some additional information that may be useful to the reader.
1. these are the SC I comply with.
2. These are the ones that are not applicable.
3. These are the ones I don't comply with.
<allanj> eric brings up http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0024.html
More discussion about extensions and what kind of conformance claims they can submit.
GL: I want to have a small conformacne claim for my extension because it only does this one thing. I don't have the ability to test it with all of a browser.
<Greg> That is, I don't have the resources to *test* the entire browser that hosts my extension, in order to submit a conformance claim for the combination of it plus my extension.
More discussion of user agents and what they consist of.
<allanj> kf: what do we need to do to make a resolution.
Group has more discussion around user agents, such as those embeded as part of web pages.
<Greg> Examples of web-based user agents: Google Translate, and Google's "Quick View" of PDFs on the web. In both cases, all the UI is presented as HTML for the user's web browser to render.
<allanj> Web-base UA seems an edge case. if we are working this hard to even define it, perhaps we should eliminate it.
More talk about user agents.
<allanj> web-based text editors. written in JS but rendered by the UA. xStandard, ckEditor.
Emphasizing web based user agents.
<allanj> this could also be canvas.
<Greg> Another example of a web-based authoring tool/user agent is https://thimble.webmaker.org.
<allanj> for next week
<allanj> extended telecon
<allanj> eric comments
<allanj> a11y taskforce bugs
<allanj> indie ui comments
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Taslforce/Taskforce/ FAILED: s/conformancne/conformance/ Succeeded: s/hosts me/hosts my extension/ Succeeded: s/hare/hard/ Found Scribe: kford Inferring ScribeNick: kford WARNING: Dash separator lines found. If you intended them to mark the start of a new topic, you need the -dashTopics option. For example: <Philippe> --- <Philippe> Review of Action Items Default Present: Jim_Allan, Jan, EricHansen, KellyFord, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, sharper, kford Present: Jim_Allan Jan EricHansen KellyFord Greg_Lowney Kim_Patch sharper kford Regrets: Jeanne Found Date: 31 Jan 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jim WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]