W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

18 Apr 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
kford, Kim_Patch, Jan, +1.609.734.aaaa, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, sharper
Regrets
jeanne
Chair
jimAllan, KellyFord
Scribe
allanj, kford

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 18 April 2013

<allanj> scribe: allanj

kp: LEAP motion gesture input

<kford> Scribe: kford

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results

Conformance Claim 7

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq2

JA going over comments found in survey

<allanj> proposed wording: Supported Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria. Also list additional mark up language extensions (e.g. SVG, MathML) supported by the user agent.

JR JA and GL all saying they made the same basic comment.

JR: It boils down to the fact that we have a term web client technology and we should use that.

Correction, that was web content technologies.

<allanj> gregs proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent renders while conforming with UAAG 2.0. Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc.

<allanj> eh: for both included and excluded technologies - clarify - technology relied upon for claimed conformance level

<allanj> jr: use 'included', used in ATAG. anything not included in the following list is excluded.

<allanj> ... don't want to say relied upon. \

<allanj> gregs proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent renders while conforming with UAAG 2.0.

<allanj> eh: concerned about "while conforming" seems circular

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to fix language about conforming [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-819 - Fix language about conforming [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc.

<allanj> kp: any other technical issues?

<allanj> silence

Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #8

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq3

<allanj> proposed wording: Excluded Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that cannot meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria (e.g a video codex that does not support captioning). For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.

<allanj> jeanne: CHANGE TO: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.

<allanj> jr: UAAG allows conformer to scope the claim.

<allanj> jr: ok with jeanne new wording.

<allanj> gl: when completing claim form, never seen a list of conformance for html, svg, but not html.

<allanj> ... better to not use the wording

<Jan> JR: re-words and does not agree afterall

<allanj> list of tech excluded. no testing of that format is included in the conformance claim

<allanj> jr: we are talking about things that are not included, or they are making a claim on a subset of what they do.

<allanj> kp: I thought 8 is about things a UA can't or won't do

<allanj> gl: there are countless items that are possible for the "we don't do" list

<allanj> kp: so the issue is there are too many of them.

<allanj> jr: and what purpose is served. idea came out of ATAG. FF is always adding new rendered formats. but we don't want it to invalidate the UAAG claim.

<allanj> kp: thinks jeannes language takes care of that.

<allanj> gl: problem with "does not apply" has a different meaning technically

<allanj> kp: is there better language than "does not apply"

<allanj> jr: no. these listed items are NOT part of the claim. we don't say anything about them.

<allanj> eh: out side of the claim. do we need to enumerate those outside the claim.

<allanj> jr: outsiders are not aware of all of the thing that could be rendered by a UA.

<allanj> gl: there is benefit to listing the items excluded from the claim.

<allanj> jr: ah, claim for mpeg but not for quicktime.

<allanj> ja: what's our wording/

<Greg> Tweaking Jean's wording might be "For these listed technologies, the user agent does not claim that it conforms with UAAG 2.0."

<Greg> Or "The user agent does not claim to conform to UAAG 2.0 when rendering these formats."

<Jan> ATAG's wording : A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.

<allanj> proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent DOES NOT render while conforming with UAAG 2.0.

<Greg> Of course, technically the user agent doesn't claim anything, the conformance claim document does.

<Greg> "For these listed technologies, no conformance with UAAG 2.0 is claimed."

<Jan> JR: UAAG-ified: A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.

<allanj> +1

<Jan> I also like greg's

<allanj> eh: like the merging of 7&8

I would go with Jans.

<allanj> gl: like separate, for clarity.

<Greg> Either would be acceptable.

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to merge 7 & 8 to say "A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately." and include the "Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-820 - Merge 7 & 8 to say "A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately." and include the "Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as... [on Jeanne F Spellman -

<trackbot> ... due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> ...PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc."

Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #9

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq4

<allanj> close action-819

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-819 Fix language about conforming.

<allanj> proposed: Excluded Platform Technologies: If the platform (hardware or operating system) does not support a capability necessary for a given UAAG 2.0 success criterion, list the success criterion and the feature (e.g. a mobile operating system does not support platform accessibility services, therefore the user agent cannot meet success criterion 4.1.2). For these listed technologies, the...

<allanj> ...user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.

<allanj> to address the thorny problem of partial conformance for mobile devices that aren't supported by their platform

<allanj> jeanne: proposed change to last sentence: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.

<allanj> eh: is this a place where NA is appropriate.

<allanj> gl: yes. it was so in my proposal.

<allanj> eh: is this needed? could we say in the declarations area...this is NA because the platform does not support it.

<allanj> jr: partially agree. weird stub - excluded platform technologies.

<allanj> kp: being parallel with excluded web content technologies.

<allanj> gl: ok with para, need a change in the title.

<allanj> jr: this should be excluded because of platform limitations.

<allanj> gl: UA may want to do it, but can

<allanj> 't because of platform limitation

<Greg> "Platform Limitations: If the platform..."?

<allanj> kp: we have gone in circles about this.

<allanj> gl: needs to be called out, to make folks aware. could be in declarations, but here also

<allanj> ... change title to platform limitations use the same language.

<Greg> This section acts as a summary of the claim, so I think it will be very helpful to readers to call out here that the UA fails in some SC because the *platform* fails.

<allanj> eh: strong inclination to not be redundant

<allanj> ... summary should be somewhere else.

<allanj> kp: putting the entire context makes it clear, but not redundant.

<allanj> eh: platform limitations the effect multiple SC

<allanj> kp: these must be listed, and not required to conform. talking about how to deal with platform limitations not meeting them

<allanj> eh: isn't this redundant with part C.

<allanj> kp: if it were up there, the user would not see it.

<allanj> eh: we are using "platform" in 2 different ways. if listed in excluded because of platform limitations they should be listed in excluded section.

<allanj> ... we should be consistent in our use of "platform"

<allanj> gl: title is Platform Limitations

<allanj> eh: why is it not listed in #6

<allanj> kp: have a picture, line drawing, but if you don't have the spaces between the lines, you don't have a picture.

<allanj> ... the way we have it structured, is to prevent assumptions.

<Greg> I'd say it's different from #6 because the former is things in the platform that allow the UA to claim conformance, while #9 is summarizing which SC the UA *does not* conform with because of things the platform fails to provide.

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#conformance

<Greg> #6 is the list of platforms the UA supports.

<allanj> kp: in order to be compliant you must provide the following information.

<allanj> jr. 6c should be hardware requirements

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to change 6c to be Hardware requirements, not limitations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-821 - Change 6c to be Hardware requirements, not limitations [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> eh: under hardware requirements, in apr 4 meeting we had input devices listed. we seem to have lost them

<allanj> kp: do you want to add one in. we want a real world example

<allanj> kp: can use a mouse or pointing device,

<allanj> eh: supports both keyboard and mouse.

<allanj> kp: no. this is a listing of what the UA needs to meet the SC.

<allanj> jr: must have ability to use a keyboard or pointing device

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to add example "ability to use a keyboard" to 6c [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-822 - Add example "ability to use a keyboard" to 6c [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to change title of 9 to be "Platform Limitations" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-823 - Change title of 9 to be "Platform Limitations" [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> ACTION: jeanne to move 9 platform limitations to 7, so we define the Platform Requirements (6), then list the Platform Limitations (7) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-824 - Move 9 platform limitations to 7, so we define the Platform Requirements (6), then list the Platform Limitations (7) [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].

<allanj> jr: trepidation of removing partial conformance, is that the top level label is we conform.

<allanj> ... have a Swahili website, do everything right, but there is no Swahili screen reader. so the top level statement is Partial Conformance.

<allanj> Items for next week include 10 from survey and partial conformance.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to add example "ability to use a keyboard" to 6c [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to change 6c to be Hardware requirements, not limitations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to change title of 9 to be "Platform Limitations" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to fix language about conforming [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to merge 7 & 8 to say "A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately." and include the "Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to move 9 platform limitations to 7, so we define the Platform Requirements (6), then list the Platform Limitations (7) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html#action06]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-04-18 18:36:58 $

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: allanj
Inferring ScribeNick: allanj
Found Scribe: kford
Inferring ScribeNick: kford
Scribes: allanj, kford
ScribeNicks: allanj, kford
Default Present: kford, Kim_Patch, Jan, +1.609.734.aaaa, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, sharper
Present: kford Kim_Patch Jan +1.609.734.aaaa Greg_Lowney Jim_Allan sharper
Regrets: jeanne
Found Date: 18 Apr 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: jeanne

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]