W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

21 Mar 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
[Microsoft], Jeanne, Jan, Eric, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Jim_Allan, sharper
Regrets
Chair
KFord
Scribe
Jan

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 21 March 2013

<kford> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results starting with #6

<kford> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0041.html

<scribe> Scribe: Jan

KF: Couple short things on the agenda...

conformance survey

KF: Let's start at #6

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq8

Conformance Claim (Optional)

Conformance Requirements

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq7

KF: 3 satisffied, 1 changes, 2 neutrals

EH: Chanes were just capitalizations
... But will defer to the standard or convention

JR: In terms of full conformance use case, this is fine.

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.

JS: pls hold that though until that section.

EH: OK

JS: Has fixed Note 1 issue

KF: Moving on...

Conformance Claim (Optional)

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq8

GL: My comment was just grammatical

EH: Suggested retitling Conformance Claims Are Optional...if a title is necessary

GL: Then carry on, deleting parenthetical

JS: Done

EH: I'm not even sure that the title is needed, but if it is it should tell what the point is

GL: There is more that follows

EH: Oh...I was working from Dec 20 comments....

<jeanne> 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:

EH: If there is only one section...

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims

JR: Comes from WCAG 2.0

EH: Then its ok

<jeanne> 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:

JS: Then remove bulleted list of conditions...

KF: Is everyone ok with this change?

GL: Purely editorial?

JS: Yes

JR: I'm ok

GL: BTW any headers involving conformance claims should be marked up as subheaders to Conformance Claims

KF: I think that all makes sense

Conditions on Conformance Claims

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq9

JS: ATAG has pushback from vendors about who can claim. Our phrasing is like waving a red flag. I suggest:

* There are no restrictions on who can make a claim.

* Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims.

JR: +1

GL: +1

EH: +1

JA: +1

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...
... 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.

JS: +1
... Likes the claimant info idea.

JR: +1

JA: +1

JS: Could last point be a closing paragraph?

GL: A lot of them are actually not conditions.

EH: Does seem to make sense to separate out into conditions.

JR: re: claiimants being anyone: if its not restricted, its open

KF: Erics comments....

EH: Most of them are small editorial things (Capitalization,etc)

<Greg> 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.

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".

EH: OK then not relevant

Required Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq10

EH: I agree with most of what GL says

GL: Most of mine are purely editorial
...
... 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.

EH: +1

KP: +1

JR: +1

KF: +1
... Anything else not editorial?

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.

JS: Covered by #7 declarations

GL: OK
... 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?

JA: Raisies issue that UAs only implement part of specs

EH: Important over-riding question is status of these technologies that are required to fulfill certain technologies
... Whether thety are outside UA or grafted in

<Greg> I think it might be too much of a burden to make the claimant list every version of every technology they support.

EH: How much granularity is needed is a tough question.

JS: Maybe removed version number?

GL: Or say when applicable?

JA: Think we should remove it, doesn't stop them.

GL: OK

KF: OK
... Done with that one?

EH: 9. Evidence.[Does the claimant need to describe evidence that supports the claim (e.g., automated for human reviews)?]
... Is a platform always present?
... WHy are we not listing hardware?
... Perceiving by senses requires hardware.
... Hardware category may be more fundamental than platform.
... Also "user agent user interface" issue

JS: Back to platform.
... Would like to expand platform to say e.g. mobile device

EH: Shouldn't they be able to specify a platform without saying what they tested on
... Evidence is a separate issue...eg you claimed three platforms but evidence is only provided for 1....

KP: I think its really important to know what's claimed vs what's tested.

JS: I would like to remove "(used to evaluate non-web-based user agent user interfaces)"

<jeanne> 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.

<jeanne> 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

<jeanne> limitations may also be included, such as a minimum screen size and that speakers were on the device.

<jeanne> 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

<jeanne> limitations may also be included, such as a minimum screen size and that speakers were on the device.

JA: May not have speakers...may have jacks...

EH: Audio output
... Gets confusing...what are the boundaries of the user agent.
... Are the included technologies part of the user agent? THen kick down to platform..
... Very confusing to have web-based user agents here
... We're using user agent in different senses...without being clear

JR: Wording needs work

GL: Could generacize further...to IDEs , JREs etc.

EH: If the user agent is hosted within X, then provide information about X.
... Don't muddy the waters by mentionning that X might be a user agent.

JA: I think that sounds clear...

JS: Any volunteers to write this?

GL: Sure

<Greg> ACTION: Greg to rewrite #9 Platform section of Required Components of Conformance Claim to simplify host applications, examples including hardware component, etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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].

EH: The nugget is that the UA is hosted on a hardware/software platform

Optional Components of an UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq11

All agree

"Progress Towards Conformance" Statement

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results#xq12

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...
... separate document, then the heading should certainly end with "(Optional)" like the parallel heading does.

KF: Deep six it?
... Will pick it up next week.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Greg to rewrite #9 Platform section of Required Components of Conformance Claim to simplify host applications, examples including hardware component, etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-03-21 18:32:30 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Default Present: [Microsoft], Jeanne, Jan, Eric, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Jim_Allan, sharper
Present: [Microsoft] Jeanne Jan Eric Greg_Lowney Kim_Patch Jim_Allan sharper
Found Date: 21 Mar 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/21-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: greg

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]