W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

11 Jul 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jim_Allan, sharper, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Kim_Patch, +1.609.734.aaaa, Eric
Regrets
Kelly, Jeanne
Chair
Jim Allan
Scribe
allanj

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 11 July 2013

Jan proposal for minor UAAG2 comments

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0002.html

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

<Greg> How does that differ from http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0002.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

topic EO34

EO34

jr: need to make sure we discuss the intent of notes in the implementing document.

<Greg> If the examples were numbered, I'd have no objection to putting parentheticals like "(see example 7)" into the Implementing document where appropriate.

Resolution: EO34 the editors will consider numbering Implementing notes and numbering the Examples and cross referencing them as appropriate

<Greg> But just referring people to the whole Examples section doesn't seem particularly useful. As someone else said, they should go on to read the examples, and every example is elaborating on something in the document.

Resolution: links to the Implementing document be added for EACH SC. \

<Jan> ACTION: JR to To look at notes in GL and determine if they are sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-845 - Look at notes in GL and determine if they are sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [on Jan Richards - due 2013-07-18].

<Greg> I think Jan's comment is reasonable that if there's a Note in the main document that could use further elaboration, we could put such elaboration into the Intent. However, I'd rather do it on a case by case basis than to put in paragraphs for every Note.

comment AR1

<Greg> If an application developer *chooses* to use a particular library, toolset or framework that limits their accessibility, that is not enough to let the claim a “not applicable due to platform limitations” (NA-Platform) status, because they could have developed for the same set of users but using a different library, and thus avoided the limiting factor. They only get the NA-Platform...

<Greg> ...status if...

<Greg> ...the limitation was imposed by something they could not avoid without changing audience (e.g. switching from one OS to another, or to another hardware platform). By the way, will the descriptions of different Success, Not Applicable, and Fail statuses be included somewhere?

jr: comment suggest that we should not limit to (hardware or software).
... if you review the definition of platform it is clear that platform is more than hardware and OS.
... remove "(hardware or operating system)"
... re: greg comment - isn't it easier to list limitations

gl: this creates a big loophole, that developer could put inaccessible stuff in a library, so its not the applications fault, it is a problem of a library.

jr: need to be clear about what causes the limitation

eh: if developer declares NA due to limitation of the platform, right

gl: choosing a library to use, is critical, they should be held accountable.

jr: you would be partially conforming.

gl: 508 issues. VPAT lets you list your limitations, but not necessarily fix them
... have not listed categories of PASS, FAIL and NA. we cannot decide this until we have the categories

eh: we do ask them to provide a rationale for using a limitation.

gl: we have to elaborate on the limitations.

jr: +1

eh: should we list things that are not acceptable as a limitation.

gl: 20 different libraries for widgets and you choose a non-keyboard accessible library, that was a poor choice, you do not get a PASS or an NA

<Greg> ...because that library was part of your platform, but it was an *optional* portion of your platform.

eh: do we have the bandwidth to create this listing.
... compare different products. Narrowly defined UA and broad defintion of Platform. a different product with broad UA def. and narrow Platform def. might skew the results.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html

Resolution: Review Greg's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html) as a shortened bit to add to conformance - as a resolution to comment AR1

gl: what qualifies as platform limitation? this is what is needed for resolving AR1

eh: example, if you have multiple libraries, only one of which is accessible. the functionality of the library, has to be part of the UA not the platform.
... conformance scheme allows declaring the limitation of the UA.
... if you delcare what is related to UA and what is Platform
... if we have rules about what is allowed in the Platform.

gl: Platform limitations are things you cannot avoid or get around. these are not optional.
... only things you can't avoid are allowed, things that are optional is not a Platform limitation

jr: makes sense

kim: +1

eh: things that are optional, are not an adequate criteria for making something a platform limitation

jr: we have a good conformance section. wanted to see how Greg's piece will fit in to make it more robust..

gl: rewrite paragraph 7 to be more specific about what is or is not a platform limitation.
... a separate issue, is my previous proposal.

<Eric> Possible language: "If a design choice in platform components is optional, then a platform limitation cannot make a success criterion not-applicable."

<Greg> ACTION: Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 7 "Platform Limitations" to distinguish between those that qualify for NA (e.g. unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those that do not (e.g. optional libraries) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-846 - Draft rewrite of Conformance item 7 "Platform Limitations" to distinguish between those that qualify for NA (e.g. unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those that do not (e.g. optional libraries) [on Greg Lowney - due 2013-07-18].

<Eric> Possible language v2: "If a design choice in a platform component is optional, then a platform limitation due to that component cannot make a success criterion not-applicable."

comment EO10 & EO11

<Greg> ACTION: Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 9 "Declarations" to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-847 - Draft rewrite of Conformance item 9 "Declarations" to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform [on Greg Lowney - due 2013-07-18].

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

gl: moving the paragraph "some UAAG2.0 requirements..." as a note in Programmatic Access GL

jr: +1

<Greg> We can move this Note to the beginning of Principle 4 "Programmatic Access". Its purpose is presumably to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of some readers who say "this platform accessibility API idea is ridiculous because it will be a security hole!"

eh: is there a reliance to an underlying security mechanism?

gl: we assume that developers will address security issues when using APIs

<Jan> ACTION: JR to Turn security paragraph in overview into a proposed note for the programmatic access GL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-848 - Turn security paragraph in overview into a proposed note for the programmatic access GL [on Jan Richards - due 2013-07-18].

Resolution: Comment AR1 - remove paragraph, reword as a note to be included in Principal 4, (see action-848)

comment EO12

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130628/#layers_guide

Resolution: comment EO12 - group feels that the section is adequate as is.

comment EO13 & EO 14

suggest - remove information after Principles

Principles - there are 5 high level principles that organize the guidelines.

kim: tend to agree with comment. readers need a better mental map of what's coming up in the document

<KimPatch> ACTION: kim to reword layers of guidance principles bullet point to include better explanation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-849 - Reword layers of guidance principles bullet point to include better explanation [on Kimberly Patch - due 2013-07-18].

rrsagent: make minutes

s/principals/principles

rrsagent: make minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 7 "Platform Limitations" to distinguish between those that qualify for NA (e.g. unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those that do not (e.g. optional libraries) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 9 "Declarations" to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to To look at notes in GL and determine if they are sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Turn security paragraph in overview into a proposed note for the programmatic access GL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: kim to reword layers of guidance principles bullet point to include better explanation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action05]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-07-11 18:41:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

FAILED: s/principals/principles/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: allanj
Inferring Scribes: allanj
Default Present: Jim_Allan, sharper, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Kim_Patch, +1.609.734.aaaa, Eric
Present: Jim_Allan sharper Greg_Lowney Jan Kim_Patch +1.609.734.aaaa Eric
Regrets: Kelly Jeanne
Found Date: 11 Jul 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: greg jr kim

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]