17:01:09 RRSAgent has joined #ua 17:01:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/18-ua-irc 17:01:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:01:11 Zakim has joined #ua 17:01:13 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 17:01:13 ok, trackbot, I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM already started 17:01:14 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 17:01:14 Date: 18 July 2013 17:01:54 regrets: Jim, Kim 17:02:53 agenda+ Jan proposal for minor UAAG2 comments 17:03:05 Jan has joined #ua 17:03:21 zakim, code? 17:03:21 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:03:39 +[IPcaller] 17:03:45 agenda+ Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/ 17:03:58 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:03:58 +Jan; got it 17:04:22 agenda+ Jan proposal for removing summaries http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0000.html 17:04:37 +Greg_Lowney 17:09:23 zakim, who's here? 17:09:26 On the phone I see +1.425.381.aaaa, Jan, Greg_Lowney 17:09:26 On IRC I see Jan, Zakim, RRSAgent, Greg, kford, trackbot 17:09:35 jeanne has joined #ua 17:09:40 zakim, aaaa is really Kelly 17:09:40 +Kelly; got it 17:10:24 +Jeanne 17:11:51 zakim, who is here? 17:11:51 On the phone I see Kelly, Jan, Greg_Lowney, Jeanne 17:11:52 On IRC I see jeanne, Jan, Zakim, RRSAgent, Greg, kford, trackbot 17:12:09 regrets+ Kim 17:12:17 sharper has joined #ua 17:13:36 zakim, code? 17:13:36 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sharper 17:13:48 +??P15 17:13:56 zakim, ??P15 is sharper 17:13:56 +sharper; got it 17:14:17 zakim, agenda? 17:14:17 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 17:14:19 1. Jan proposal for minor UAAG2 comments [from kford] 17:14:19 2. Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/ [from kford] 17:14:19 3. Jan proposal for removing summaries http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0000.html [from kford] 17:14:25 scribe: Jan 17:14:51 Zakim, take up agendum 1 17:14:51 agendum 1. "Jan proposal for minor UAAG2 comments" taken up [from kford] 17:14:57 zakim, take up item 1 17:14:57 agendum 1. "Jan proposal for minor UAAG2 comments" taken up [from kford] 17:15:21 JAN: We did some of this from our last call. 17:15:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0002.html 17:15:56 last minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0005.html 17:18:26 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/ 17:18:31 July 1 17:19:35 JR: The wording under "Modality Independent Controls" seems oddly normative for introduction 17:19:54 JR: Aren't we covered by the 3 SCs in Guideline 2.12 - Other Input Devices 17:20:17 (We should be using Implementing at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130701.) 17:21:50 GL: It was Kim's idea... 17:22:01 JR: So maybe we should wait 17:23:02 It doesn't really fit where it ended up. 17:23:38 JR: Agreed 17:24:12 GL: Did it come up in email? 17:24:36 GL: I will send an email to Kim + UA list 17:28:06 Done. 17:28:10 Zakim, close this item 17:28:10 agendum 1 closed 17:28:11 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:28:11 2. Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/ [from kford] 17:28:16 Zakim, take up agendum 2 17:28:16 agendum 2. "Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/" taken up [from kford] 17:28:45 Zakim, take up agendum 3 17:28:45 agendum 3. "Jan proposal for removing summaries http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0000.html" taken up [from kford] 17:29:34 Here's the original description of the intent for the summaries that Kim and I came up with: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0007.html 17:29:53 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#summary18 17:31:03 JS: We hadn't got there (summaries)...we could raise priorities.. 17:31:21 JS: We could look at it again then 17:32:44 KF: Let's just see what they look like when they are finished editing 17:33:40 KF: Even if we change later to Rationale the wording isn't lost 17:34:23 JS: Hopefully a good editorial pass will fix them up 17:34:25 Our goals were: 17:34:27 * make them *easy to read*, 17:34:28 * make them as *self-explanatory* as possible, and 17:34:30 * *convey the general idea of each success criterion* while leaving the legalistic details for elsewhere (e.g. the normative wording of the success criteria, applicability notes, intent paragraphs, and examples), 17:34:31 * *clarify the relationships between the success criteria *for a guideline that are often difficult to figure out in the full, legalistic versions. 17:34:33 To achieve those goals we tried to: 17:34:34 * *address the developer directly* and *use the imperative* (e.g. "Provide..." and "Let..." rather than "...is provided" and "...can..."), 17:34:36 * *avoid jargon* (e.g. "W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" rather than "WCAG", "menus, buttons, dialogs, etc." rather than "user agent user interface elements"), 17:34:37 * *choose words and phrases that suggest everyday speech* rather than technical documents (e.g. "make sure" instead of "ensure"), 17:34:38 zakim, close item 3 17:34:38 agendum 3, Jan proposal for removing summaries http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0000.html, closed 17:34:39 * *include inline examples and explanations* rather than just restating the requirements, 17:34:40 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:34:40 2. Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/ [from kford] 17:34:40 * *avoid going into too much detail* (e.g. don't try to list all the conditions and exceptions, don't call out priorities except to contrast items), and 17:34:42 * *break out the upshot for each success criterion* (e.g. following each sub-item summary with its corresponding SC number in parentheses). 17:34:48 Zakim, take up agendum 2 17:34:48 agendum 2. "Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/" taken up [from kford] 17:35:57 Resolved: Revisit issue of changing summaries to rational after editorial work is completed. 17:36:21 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results 17:37:07 kford_ has joined #ua 17:37:25 zakim, agenda? 17:37:25 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:37:26 2. Survey from 4 July https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/ [from kford] 17:38:47 JR: Q1...no one answered 17:39:24 Q2: JR and GL sent more email to the list. Prob too complicated for our small group today. 17:39:50 Q3: JR51 on 1.5.1 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results#xq5 17:41:53 I think it’s fine to reduce the priority of the current 1.5.1, but the title should be changed to something more appropriate such as "Volume of individual tracks" or "Track volume." 17:42:10 GL: OK with making 1.5.1 AA 17:42:58 Because we’d no longer have any Level A SC about adjusting volume, I also suggest renaming it to 1.5.2 and inserting a new SC, "1.5.1 Volume Control: The user can adjust the volume of all audio played, relative to the global volume level set through *operating environment* mechanisms. (Level A)" I think it’s quite reasonable for any media player to provide at minimum one volume control for... 17:43:00 ...the media it’s playing, and so widely implemented as to be expected by users, and entirely necessary for users who need to adjust their media volume without affecting the volume of their synthesized speech, etc. 17:43:07 GL: Proposes new "1.5.1 Volume Control: The user can adjust the volume of all audio played, relative to the global volume level set through *operating environment* mechanisms. (Level A)" 17:43:16 GL: To go ahead of what's there. 17:44:11 This is not really adding a new SC, but restoring an old one that was lost. 17:45:41 JR: Netflix app on Android just uses the global media volume setting, so it would fail this proposed SC. 17:46:09 Resolution: GL: On iOS global volume is same as media playing 17:46:38 s/Resolution/GL 17:47:27 KF: Narrator on Windows 8 and VoiceOver on Apple platforms implement "audio ducking", where the global volume is reduced while speech is being generated. 17:47:31 KF: On VoiceOver and Narrator, there is audio-ducking...global audio is reduced when screen reader is active 17:48:48 GL: Other cases of conflict...someone playing audio with very low level... 17:49:50 Audio ducking might help with conflict between speech and other audio, but if a person needs to increase the volume of one very quiet video a lot, they don't want speech of notifications to blow their ears out. 17:49:52 JR: So then how would it apply in Android..."Media Vlume" example? 17:50:40 GL: OK but app should still have its own volume 17:51:26 Thus I'd lean towards requiring each app have its own volume control, for when people need to *increase* volume, or use speech other than the system default utility (that implements audio ducking). 17:52:49 JR: In the a 17:53:14 JR: In the Android case, there are four different volumes: media volume, notification volume 17:53:29 ...ringtone, and system. And call volume 17:53:46 ... there is no universal global volume in the first place. 17:54:31 ... probably the media volume could be considered the Global volume, and then the Netflix app just uses the Android media volume. 17:55:17 GL: If I use the volume up button, will that boost everything, or are the other volumes a percentage of the Media volume. 17:57:00 KF: The way devices are evolving, wouldn't we be better saying that we require it at AA, and not A. In particular on the mobile platforms (and this is still evolving) all applications are trying to reconsile all the different demands for audio. Especially a phone call. 17:58:30 GL: If on windows someone using JAWS...no audio-ducking...if Netflix just used default volume we are back to the problem. 17:59:39 KF: In win7, any app that is playing audio, Win allows you to mod the volume of that sound. 18:00:21 KF: In Win8, older apps still have that, but modern applications have just one level 18:01:54 GL: I went to the volume mixer in Win7.... 18:02:08 GL: let's me mix volume for each app... 18:02:27 GL: So on Win7, everything would meet 18:04:38 But if a UA didn't let the user adjust its volume on WinXP, where the system doesn't provide per-app volume control, I'd consider that UA remiss. 18:05:57 Action KF: To write a proposal for a new SC in 1.5 to cover the issue of audio volume intereference with AT and potentially other audio sources 18:05:57 Created ACTION-850 - Write a proposal for a new SC in 1.5 to cover the issue of audio volume intereference with AT and potentially other audio sources [on Kelly Ford - due 2013-07-25]. 18:06:12 For me the goals are two: preventing conflict between UA sound and assistive technology sound, and also accommodating users who need to avoid very loud or very soft sounds and thus need to adjust volume for one app or media. 18:07:18 Question 4 JR9 on 1.8.1 18:07:22 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results#xq6 18:10:21 Per Jim's comment that there were no implementations, Firefox lets the user adjust focus rectangle thickness, but unfortunately it doesn't work very well at all (leaving visual artifacts as the focus moves). 18:12:02 Resolution: Split 1.8.1 Highlight Viewport into 1.8.1 Highlight Viewport, 1.8.x Customize Viewport Highlighting 18:13:05 Why do we have this (or these) SC instead of just including these in 1.3.1 (Highlighted Items) and 1.3.2 (Highlighting Options)? 18:14:08 In fact, 1.3.1.b does list focus cursors. 18:17:47 KF: Are you ok with wording if duplicate? 18:19:36 I'd change1.8.1 to say "The user can have the viewport with the input focus be highlighted" or equivalent, so that mobile/touch-based UI's don't have to indicate focus rectangle when not in a mode where focus is relevant. 18:21:02 JR: OK 18:21:16 That is, if the user wants or needs focus indicators, they should be able to have them, but if they don't need them it's okay for them to be hidden (e.g. by default on touchscreen devices). 18:21:34 1.3.1 is already written correctly in this regard. 18:21:39 KF: Can we approve wording and then look at if 1.3.1 and 1.8.1 are duplicates? 18:22:58 1.8.1 Highlight Viewport: The user can have the viewport with the input focus be highlighted. 18:23:48 1.8.1 Highlight Viewport: The user can have the viewport with the input focus be highlighted. (Level A) 18:24:29 Resolution: All agree with "1.8.1 Highlight Viewport: The user can have the viewport with the input focus be highlighted. (Level A)" 18:24:49 1.8.x Customize Viewport Highlighting: The user can customize attributes of the highlighting mechanism (e.g. shape, size, stroke width, color, blink rate). (Level AA) 18:28:37 We could add to 1.3.2.d "Shape and size when the indicator is an image". 18:30:25 Action: Greg to review 1.8.1,x to see if they can be merged into 1.3.1-2 to avoid duplication 18:30:25 Created ACTION-851 - Review 1.8.1,x to see if they can be merged into 1.3.1-2 to avoid duplication [on Greg Lowney - due 2013-07-25]. 18:30:45 -sharper 18:30:46 -Jan 18:30:48 sharper has left #ua 18:30:49 -Greg_Lowney 18:31:06 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:31:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/18-ua-minutes.html Jan 18:31:14 RRSAgent, set logs public 18:33:07 -Kelly 18:34:15 -Jeanne 18:34:16 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended 18:34:16 Attendees were +1.425.381.aaaa, Jan, Greg_Lowney, Kelly, Jeanne, sharper