16:58:50 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:58:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-irc 16:58:52 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:58:52 Zakim has joined #ua 16:58:54 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:58:54 ok, trackbot, I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM already started 16:58:55 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:58:55 Date: 21 March 2013 17:00:57 +Jeanne 17:01:02 Jan has joined #ua 17:01:35 Greg has joined #ua 17:01:59 +[IPcaller] 17:02:34 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:02:34 +Jan; got it 17:03:04 +Eric 17:03:10 +Greg_Lowney 17:03:39 Agenda+ conformance survey 17:03:40 Eric_Hansen has joined #ua 17:03:40 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results starting with #6 17:03:42 Agenda+ Eric Hansen comments on UAAG 2.0 17:03:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0041.html 17:04:00 rrsagent, make minutes 17:04:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html kford 17:04:18 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:05:21 +Kim_Patch 17:06:26 +Jim_Allan 17:09:08 Scribe: Jan 17:09:34 KF: Couple short things on the agenda... 17:09:46 zakim, agenda? 17:09:46 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 17:09:48 1. conformance survey [from kford] 17:09:48 2. Eric Hansen comments on UAAG 2.0 [from kford] 17:10:08 Zakim, take up agendum 1 17:10:08 agendum 1. "conformance survey" taken up [from kford] 17:10:19 KF: Let's start at #6 17:10:28 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results 17:10:35 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq8 17:10:54 Conformance Claim (Optional) 17:12:14 Topic: Conformance Requirements 17:12:21 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq7 17:12:55 KF: 3 satisffied, 1 changes, 2 neutrals 17:13:45 EH: Chanes were just capitalizations 17:14:09 EH: But will defer to the standard or convention 17:16:03 JR: In terms of full conformance use case, this is fine. 17:16:54 EH: On that point, JRs comment reminds me of a question I have related to progress towards conformance. I think only user agents should be eligible for progress to conformance. 17:17:10 JS: pls hold that though until that section. 17:17:12 EH: OK 17:18:11 JS: Has fixed Note 1 issue 17:18:16 KF: Moving on... 17:18:26 Topic: Conformance Claim (Optional) 17:18:31 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq8 17:19:14 GL: My comment was just grammatical 17:19:44 EH: Suggested retitling Conformance Claims Are Optional...if a title is necessary 17:20:03 GL: Then carry on, deleting parenthetical 17:20:07 JS: Done 17:21:09 EH: I'm not even sure that the title is needed, but if it is it should tell what the point is 17:21:35 GL: There is more that follows 17:22:12 EH: Oh...I was working from Dec 20 comments.... 17:22:39 User agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 without making a claim. If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information: 17:23:25 q+ with proposal 17:23:33 EH: If there is only one section... 17:23:34 q- with 17:23:42 q- proposal 17:23:49 q+ to say I have a proposal 17:23:52 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims 17:23:58 JR: Comes from WCAG 2.0 17:24:11 EH: Then its ok 17:24:29 User agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 without making a claim. If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information: 17:25:01 JS: Then remove bulleted list of conditions... 17:27:13 KF: Is everyone ok with this change? 17:27:21 GL: Purely editorial? 17:27:28 JS: Yes 17:27:32 JR: I'm ok 17:29:57 GL: BTW any headers involving conformance claims should be marked up as subheaders to Conformance Claims 17:31:54 KF: I think that all makes sense 17:32:04 Topic: Conditions on Conformance Claims 17:32:09 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq9 17:33:12 JS: ATAG has pushback from vendors about who can claim. Our phrasing is like waving a red flag. I suggest: 17:33:13 * There are no restrictions on who can make a claim. 17:33:15 * Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims. 17:34:30 JR: +1 17:34:33 GL: +1 17:34:35 EH: +1 17:34:39 JA: +1 17:35:14 GL: Purely editorial...I always prefer to introduce bulleted lists with a paragraph ending in a colon, rather than putting them naked after a heading. For example, "If a conformance claim is made, the conformance claim must meet the following conditions:" Otherwise, the section after the heading doesn't really stand on its own.I'd also prefer to have this (and the following headings) be H4... 17:35:15 ...instead of H3, as it's clearly subordinate to the preceding H3.I would like to see it require some contact information for the claimant. The final bullet item isn't a condition, so it doesn't really fit in this list. We could move it somewhere else, perhaps as a note following the list, but it's not urgent. 17:35:25 JS: +1 17:36:27 JS: Likes the claimant info idea. 17:36:32 JR: +1 17:36:36 JA: +1 17:37:07 JS: Could last point be a closing paragraph? 17:37:26 GL: A lot of them are actually not conditions. 17:38:04 EH: Does seem to make sense to separate out into conditions. 17:40:25 JR: re: claiimants being anyone: if its not restricted, its open 17:43:28 KF: Erics comments.... 17:43:47 EH: Most of them are small editorial things (Capitalization,etc) 17:44:50 I do recommend including explicit language saying anyone can do conformance claims, so that less-flattering third-party claims can’t be discounted and ignored by purchasing agents by saying they're not official. 17:46:06 JS: Wording issue with • At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting level A of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is found in "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim". 17:46:14 EH: OK then not relevant 17:47:03 Topic: Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim 17:47:10 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq10 17:48:10 EH: I agree with most of what GL says 17:48:23 GL: Most of mine are purely editorial 17:49:30 GL: 17:49:33 GL: If the claimant is only claiming Level A conformance, should they really be required to test all the Level AA and AAA success criteria? Right now there is no provision for skipping those SC or answering "Not Tested". It seems a significant testing burden to put on a third party preparing a claim. 17:49:37 EH: +1 17:49:45 KP: +1 17:50:24 JR: +1 17:50:30 KF: +1 17:51:29 KF: Anything else not editorial? 17:51:38 GL: I believe that every "Not Applicable" answer should require a rationale for why not, such as one of the categories in my earlier proposal. 17:52:13 JS: Covered by #7 declarations 17:52:16 GL: OK 17:53:27 GL: If we want claims to refer to specific versions of web technologies, our inline examples should follow suit, for example changing "(e.g. HTML)" to "(e.g. HTML 5.0)". Even things like "PNG" are ambiguous; would we expect claims to distinguish between the standards of 2004, 2003, and 1996? 17:54:33 JA: Raisies issue that UAs only implement part of specs 17:55:13 EH: Important over-riding question is status of these technologies that are required to fulfill certain technologies 17:55:30 EH: Whether thety are outside UA or grafted in 17:55:39 I think it might be too much of a burden to make the claimant list every version of every technology they support. 17:55:51 EH: How much granularity is needed is a tough question. 17:56:02 JS: Maybe removed version number? 17:56:16 GL: Or say when applicable? 17:56:28 JA: Think we should remove it, doesn't stop them. 17:56:50 GL: OK 17:57:15 KF: OK 17:57:57 KF: Done with that one? 17:58:21 EH: 9. Evidence.[Does the claimant need to describe evidence that supports the claim (e.g., automated for human reviews)?] 17:58:54 EH: Is a platform always present? 17:59:10 EH: WHy are we not listing hardware? 17:59:36 EH: Perceiving by senses requires hardware. 18:00:07 EH: Hardware category may be more fundamental than platform. 18:00:51 EH: Also "user agent user interface" issue 18:01:01 JS: Back to platform. 18:01:38 JS: Would like to expand platform to say e.g. mobile device 18:03:42 sharper has joined #ua 18:03:43 EH: Shouldn't they be able to specify a platform without saying what they tested on 18:03:48 -Jim_Allan 18:04:21 +Jim_Allan 18:05:13 zakim, code 18:05:13 I don't understand 'code', sharper 18:05:14 EH: Evidence is a separate issue...eg you claimed three platforms but evidence is only provided for 1.... 18:05:19 zakim, code? 18:05:19 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sharper 18:05:33 +??P14 18:05:44 zakim, ??P14 is sharper 18:05:44 +sharper; got it 18:05:51 KP: I think its really important to know what's claimed vs what's tested. 18:06:28 JS: I would like to remove "(used to evaluate non-web-based user agent user interfaces)" 18:08:16 Platform: The platform(s) upon which the user agent was evaluated. For platforms that are user agents: provide the name and version information of the user agent. For platforms that are not user agents provide: the name and version information of the platform (e.g. operating system, mobile device, hardware) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed. 18:12:20 Platform: The platform(s) upon which the user agent was evaluated. For platforms that are user agents: provide the name and version information of the user agent. For platforms that are not user agents provide: the name and version information of the platform (e.g. operating system, mobile device, hardware) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed. Relevant hardware 18:12:20 limitations may also be included, such as a minimum screen size and that speakers were on the device. 18:12:56 Platform: The platform(s) upon which the user agent is claiming. For platforms that are user agents: provide the name and version information of the user agent. For platforms that are not user agents provide: the name and version information of the platform (e.g. operating system, mobile device, hardware) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed. Relevant hardware 18:12:56 limitations may also be included, such as a minimum screen size and that speakers were on the device. 18:14:42 JA: May not have speakers...may have jacks... 18:14:50 EH: Audio output 18:15:41 EH: Gets confusing...what are the boundaries of the user agent. 18:16:07 EH: Are the included technologies part of the user agent? THen kick down to platform.. 18:18:10 EH: Very confusing to have web-based user agents here 18:18:47 EH: We're using user agent in different senses...without being clear 18:19:52 JR: Wording needs work 18:20:14 GL: Could generacize further...to IDEs , JREs etc. 18:20:34 EH: If the user agent is hosted within X, then provide information about X. 18:20:54 EH: Don't muddy the waters by mentionning that X might be a user agent. 18:21:12 JA: I think that sounds clear... 18:21:31 JS: Any volunteers to write this? 18:21:36 GL: Sure 18:23:26 Action: Greg to rewrite #9 Platform section of Required Components of Conformance Claim to simplify host applications, examples including hardware component, etc. 18:23:26 Created ACTION-811 - Rewrite #9 Platform section of Required Components of Conformance Claim to simplify host applications, examples including hardware component, etc. [on Greg Lowney - due 2013-03-28]. 18:25:39 EH: The nugget is that the UA is hosted on a hardware/software platform 18:26:02 Topic: Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim 18:26:10 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq11 18:26:14 All agree 18:26:23 Topic: "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement 18:26:28 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq12 18:26:44 GL: Because all these headers are the same level, it's not clear whether a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is meant to be a section or appendix to a Conformance Claim, or a separate type of independent document. I would think that if a claim for Level A was published, it could easily include such a statement, along with test results for higher level SC. If it's meant to be a... 18:26:45 ...separate document, then the heading should certainly end with "(Optional)" like the parallel heading does. 18:28:15 KF: Deep six it? 18:30:14 KF: Will pick it up next week. 18:30:41 -sharper 18:30:43 -Kim_Patch 18:30:57 -[Microsoft] 18:31:02 -Jan 18:31:02 rrsagent, make minutes 18:31:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html jeanne 18:31:04 -Jim_Allan 18:31:45 zakim, bye 18:31:45 leaving. As of this point the attendees were [Microsoft], Jeanne, Jan, Eric, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Jim_Allan, sharper 18:31:45 Zakim has left #ua 18:31:54 rrsagent, make minutes 18:31:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html jeanne 18:32:15 chair: KFord 18:32:20 rrsagent, make minutes 18:32:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html jeanne 18:32:40 rrsagent, bye 18:32:40 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-actions.rdf : 18:32:40 ACTION: Greg to rewrite #9 Platform section of Required Components of Conformance Claim to simplify host applications, examples including hardware component, etc. [1] 18:32:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-irc#T18-23-26