See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 March 2013
<scribe> scribe: Greg
<jeanne> survey <- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130312/
We have 3 "Agree" and 3 worried about the Last Call deadline being too aggressive.
<jeanne> jeanne will fix LC to July 2013 and change Q2-> Q3 in milestones and Q3 -> Q4.
Greg: Generally the farther out we push it the better I'd feel, but if the group wants to try for July we'll try.
Eric: Feels July is ambitious.
Jeanne: We really need to try finishing the document by July.
Kim: Agreed that we need to push it up to avoid letting things slide.
Resolved: Last Call date to be set as July.
Jeanne: These came from a work session she and Kim did a few weeks ago, trying to incorporate some very good text that came in through various proposals even if it didn't really fit in the conformance section.
1. Changes to the "Definition of a User Agent" from the Introduction
Greg: In the definition, the phrase “*and* facilitates end-user interaction” could be an issue, because if people interpret “interaction” as two-way, the definition would exclude, for example, software that displays web-based slideshows but doesn’t allow users to interact with them.
Jeanne doesn't fee that's an issue, since there's always UI interaction at least for the person who sets it up.
Eric: Also tripped up over the
word "and" in several places in the document.
... Also not sure whether "render" is always required.
Eric: We have to decide whether rendering is required. Also may need to change the definition of rendering.
Jeanne: Would changing "and" to "or" solve the problem.
Jeanne: Avoid and/or because ambiguous.
Greg: Is an anti-virus filter
(proxy) which strips out supposedly malicious links from HTML
but then passes it on to the browser to render, a user agent,
even though it doesn't do any rendering itself?
... I suggest I would want purchasing agents to require anti-virus filters to comply with applicable SC, and thus be UA for this purpose.
Mark: Also thinking about
embedded Webkit-style components being embedded in apps, where
interaction not in the component but in UI wrapped around it,
and thus the component is providing some measure of UAAG
conformance is delegating interaction to another layer.
... Suggest changing "and facilitates" to "or enables".
Jeanne: remembers discussing earlier and deciding on "facilitates" over "enabled".
Greg: If we use "or" then wget would be a UA because it retrieves, even though it does not render or facilitate interaction, and that does seem wrong to me.
Jeanne: is there a problem with being too inclusive?
Eric: 1) Judy's concerned about the guidelines being appropriate for full-function browsers, 2) also complexity arising from thinking of all combinations of capabilities, 3) challenge of developing defensive critieria for special-purpose and limited UAs. Prefer to limit it to full-function browsers by requiring all three.
<mhakkinen> +1 to Eric's comment on a second document.
Eric: Thinks they do apply but we don't have time to specify how to make them work on a wider range of components.
Resolved: Keep it "and".
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest "or" instead of 'and'
Mark: Bandying about idea of W3C
Note style document on understanding and applying UAAG to user
... Could start on a Wiki article based on W3C Notes, addressing this topic.
Jeanne: Need to add that to our scope in the Rechartering document.
Kim: Great idea.
Mark: Will send Jeanne rough draft text/notes to help choose a title to put in the Rechartering document.
Greg: The rest of my comments on this were purely stylistic, so Jeanne and Kim can work on them offline.
2. Proposed Introduction: Relationship to WCAG
2 agree, 1 disagree, 1 suggestions.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to modify the introductory paragraphs in the User AGent definition in response to Greg's suggestions in Survey of 28 February #1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-806 - Modify the introductory paragraphs in the User AGent definition in response to Greg's suggestions in Survey of 28 February #1 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
Jeanne: Could link to Jan's comments here.
Eric: Should not link to unstable
documents, only other official W3C documents.
... Made comments in other Word document instead of the survey form, because it had been having trouble saving data.
... Concern about "application might not be considered a user agent". Seems we need to be more specific about what is and is not, then allow the reader to apply the criteria. Makes no sense to say something "might not be considered".
<jeanne> jeanne thought he was referring to link to the Note that Mark was proposing, not Jan's comments. The text in this section that is being proposed originated from one of Jan's proposals.
Eric: Regarding "non-web-based
applications", while the term is in the Implementing document,
it's not prominent in the Guidelines document, and so is not or
should not be involved in the conformance criteria. Worried
about bringing up concepts not important to the conformance
... This is non-normative here, so adds unnecessary complexity.
... Hard to see how the first sentence and the remainder relate to each other.
Greg: I wrote a proposed rewritten paragraph in the survey.
Jeanne: Why the last sentence about internal data?
Greg: Because I don't think we should require all XML used by the app to comply, only that which is involves the user.
Eric: True, if never rendered to
the user then UAAG20 doesn't apply, but if it's rendered to the
user then it does.
... Do we have SC requiring data rendered to the user to conform with WCAG?
Jeanne: Does WCAG specifically exclude data not exposed to the user? We don't want to introduce anything in our document that has an impact on WCAG.
Jeanne will work on this offline.
3. Use Cases
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to update section on Relationship with WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey AND confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the user. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-807 - Update section on Relationship with WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey AND confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the user. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
Re Greg's suggestion that we include examples of things that are and aren't covered by UAAG.
Eric: Virtually nothing in this
list shows up in Conformance, and since we have no taxonomy of
things that are likely to benefit from UAAG, and different
types of user agents, his inclination is to limit it a lot, and
have another document (such as the note that Mark mentioned)
that goes into more detail.
... Don't bring up distinctions that don't show up in the conformance scheme. No requirement that they indicate which type of user agent they have, and thus this is all non-normative commentary which may be useful if we address the wide range of software to which UAAG can be useful, then this is useful, but concerned about bringing in distinctions not reflected in the Conformance part....
... Don't burden with unnecessary distinctions.
Discussion of how this section is not intended to be in the final document, merely to help us test proposals against this.
Jeanne: Our intention when we
started was just to apply to full-featured web browsers, but
the web and needs have changed. To the extent we can, would
like to make this document inclusive. WCAG can be useful
outside of web content. Part of recent push to open up UAAG
have been in response to market pressure that people want to
use UAAG beyond just browsers. We also need to open
... beyond major browsers to be able to find examples of compliance.
Eric: If conformance section gets unmanageably complex, may tell us it's time to stop. Could say "if you have this kind of software, then this set of SC won't apply".
Jeanne: Sounds simple but very difficult to implement, as software keeps evolving.
Kim: Many "partial browsers" are in use now.
Greg: Don't favor limiting scope
to full-featured, stand-alone browsers, as more and more
applications incorporate UA functionality.
... Don't want loopholes where an app can sell to the government by stating they're not a full-featured, stand-along browser.
Greg and Jeanne will work on setting up a Wiki page on use cases early next week.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to work with greg to set up a wiki page on use cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-808 - Work with greg to set up a wiki page on use cases. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
<jeanne> +1 to Greg's survey edits
Greg suggested changing "This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements." to "This conformance section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims."
Even better " "This conformance section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims."
"This section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims."
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to update the Conformance introduction to "This section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-809 - Update the Conformance introduction to "This section lists requirements for conformance and conformance claims." [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
5. Conformance Requirements
We noted that Eric has comments in a separate document sent in January, which are not reflected in this survey.
Eric: Some stylistic comments, e.g. capitalization of "Level A".
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne with make sure that the capitalizaiton in Conformance Requirements section is consistent with WCAG Conformance. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-810 - With make sure that the capitalizaiton in Conformance Requirements section is consistent with WCAG Conformance. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
Greg: should be consistent with other WAI documents.
<jeanne> Resolved: The group agreed that Confonformance Requirements suggestion is accepted as is.
Jeanne: Eric can put his comments into the survey form for next week, as the technical problems did not apply to this survey.
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/criteira/criteria/ Succeeded: s/UAAG2/WCAG/ Succeeded: s/usefu,/useful,/ Found Scribe: Greg Inferring ScribeNick: Greg Default Present: Greg_Lowney, +1.609.734.aaaa, Kim_Patch, Jeanne, Eric, Mark_Hakkinen Present: Greg_Lowney +1.609.734.aaaa Kim_Patch Jeanne Eric Mark_Hakkinen Regrets: Jim_Allan kford Jan Found Date: 14 Mar 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]