16:55:43 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:55:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-irc 16:55:45 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:55:45 Zakim has joined #ua 16:55:47 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:55:47 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 16:55:48 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:55:48 Date: 12 September 2013 16:55:50 rrsagent, set logs public 16:56:06 chair: jimAllan, kellyFord 16:56:13 regrets: Eric 16:56:41 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 16:56:43 +[Microsoft] 16:57:10 kford has joined #ua 16:57:11 +Jim_Allan 16:57:13 -Jim_Allan 16:57:13 +Jim_Allan 16:58:12 Agenda+ Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf 16:58:25 Agenda+ jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html 16:58:33 Agenda+ GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html 16:58:46 Agenda+ Are we ready for last call - Vote 17:00:03 Greg has joined #ua 17:00:28 +Greg_Lowney 17:01:25 Jan has joined #ua 17:01:47 zakim, code? 17:01:47 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:02:01 +[IPcaller] 17:02:15 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:02:15 +Jan; got it 17:02:43 +Jeanne 17:08:01 zakim, agenda? 17:08:01 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 17:08:02 1. Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf [from allanj] 17:08:02 2. jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html [from allanj] 17:08:02 3. GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html [from allanj] 17:08:05 4. Are we ready for last call - Vote [from allanj] 17:08:14 zakim, open item 1 17:08:14 agendum 1. "Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf" taken up [from allanj] 17:09:19 Jim: WCAG proposes a joint task force with us to address mobile accessibility. Despite getting ready for last call and having limited resources, this would be good in the long term. 17:09:41 Jim: Draft charter is at the link provided. 17:10:47 Jeanne: Normally WCAG has Techniques for different technologies; the plan is to create mobile techniques, and she's pushed to include UAWG as we have done a lot of work on mobile that should not go to waste. They appreciate the fact that we have more expertise on that area at the moment. 17:11:52 Jim read the Objective for the task force. 17:12:06 Jim: Could add something about mobile browsers. 17:12:29 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:12:33 scribe: Greg 17:12:51 Objective 17:12:53 The objective of Mobile Accessibility Task Force is produce techniques, understanding and guidance documents as well as updates to existing related W3C/WAI material that addresses the mobile space. This work includes developing (or updating): 17:12:54 The creation of mobile techniques for WCAG using HTML5, ARIA, CSS and JavaScript (primarily the open web stack); 17:12:56 The development of design guidance or mobile web accessibility best practices; 17:12:57 Review of existing resources that may exist outside W3C space. 17:13:04 Approach 17:13:06 Initially the Task Force will define the scope of work need to fully address mobile accessibility. The work will likely be broken down into modular components that can be used as independent resources or as part of a cohesive suite. The individual components of the Mobile Accessibility Task Forces work may be developed as a W3C Recommendations, W3C Working Group Notes, or other W3C/WAI... 17:13:07 ...resources. This will be decided after the development of an initial, more detailed set of requirements. 17:13:09 The work will be carried out iteratively with continual involvement of the public throughout the development. In particular, key stakeholders such as developers, evaluators, experts, researchers, and users will be regularly involved in the development process of the work of the Mobile Accessibility Task Force. 17:13:35 17:13:50 s/Objective/
Objective/ 17:14:30 There were no objections. 17:14:56 Jan: Not sure if the entire group joins or if individual join. 17:15:35 +Kim_Patch 17:16:09 Jan: Probably need a resolution in favor, and then individuals will need to explicitly join the task force as well. 17:17:59 Resolution: UAWG agrees to participate in the joint task for between UAAG WG and WCAG WG on mobile accessibility 17:18:28 Jeanne: It probably involves at least one one-hour meeting per week for those individuals who participate. 17:18:30 zakim, agenda? 17:18:30 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 17:18:31 1. Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf [from allanj] 17:18:31 2. jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html [from allanj] 17:18:31 3. GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html [from allanj] 17:18:34 4. Are we ready for last call - Vote [from allanj] 17:18:35 Zakim, close item 1 17:18:35 agendum 1, Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf, closed 17:18:37 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:18:37 2. jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html [from allanj] 17:18:46 zakim, Open item 2 17:18:46 agendum 2. "jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html" taken up [from allanj] 17:19:05 Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0020.html 17:19:34 Small wording fix: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0093.html 17:20:08 Other wording fixes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0090.html 17:20:52 for the record I will vote to try last call at this point. 17:21:39 -[Microsoft] 17:21:45 JS: +1 17:21:51 Scribe: Jan 17:22:04 ja: +1 17:22:14 GL: Rewrite looks ok...just pointed out small [mobile] annoymnce 17:22:33 Jan: +1 17:22:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0098.html 17:22:50 KP: No objection 17:23:35 s/annoymnce/annoyance 17:23:36 Resolution: To accept the wording in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0090.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0093.html 17:23:53 zakim, close item 2 17:23:53 agendum 2, jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html, closed 17:23:55 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:23:55 3. GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html [from allanj] 17:23:59 zakim, open item 3 17:23:59 agendum 3. "GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html" taken up [from allanj] 17:25:01 JA: GL had proposed rewording 17:25:25 Proposed: 17:25:30 .2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are true: (Level AA) 17:25:32 a. The user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with text values that are also available to assistive technologies. 17:25:33 b. The user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content available programmatically (and not via fields reserved for text alternatives). 17:25:45 s/.2.1/1.2.1 17:26:18 GL: No that's the old text 17:27:23 GL: Proposed text: 17:27:49
17:27:50 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are true: (Level AA) 17:27:52 a. the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives *by substituting* text values that are also available to assistive technologies. 17:27:53 b. the user agent makes *other available* metadata related to the non-text content available programmatically, *but not via fields reserved for text alternatives*. 17:27:55 Intent of Success Criterion 1.2.1: 17:27:57 When alternative content is missing, it can be helpful for users to have access to other information, metadata such as the filename, which can be substituted as repair text. However, these are usually not as helpful as alternative content that was properly authored for the original document. In these cases assistive technology can provide users with a wider range of information, which may be... 17:27:58 kford_ has joined #ua 17:27:58 ...more helpful than any one piece of repair text the user agent could provide. Therefore it is important that assistive technology have access to as much information about the non-text content as possible, but also to be able to tell that no author-provided text alternative is available. User agents should provide assistive technology with the available metadata for the non-text content,... 17:28:00 ...but not substitute repair text in ways assistive technology will mistake it for author-provided text alternatives. 17:28:01 Examples of Success Criterion 1.2.1: 17:28:03 Ray is blind and counts on alternative text for images. When his screen reader is reading a web page and encounters an image, it asks the user agent for alternative text. If the user agent reports that no alternative text is available, the screen reader accesses the DOM to retrieve the title attribute associated with the image, its original file name, and path to the downloaded image file.... 17:28:04 ...It extracts embedded metadata from the image file, such as its original title and caption fields. It can then tell Ray that there is an image with no alternative text, but provide him with the value it considers most likely or which Ray has selected through his preferences, and also provide a command that lets him hear the other values, and so make his own judgement about the nature and... 17:28:06 ...purpose of the image. 17:28:07
17:28:15 Greg: I've marked the changed phrases in asterisks. 17:28:53 Greg: Assuming we're sticking with a focus entirely on assistive technology, this is a proposed minor rewrite that I think is slightly clearer. I've marked the changed phrases in asterisks. The Intent paragraph is mostly new. The reworked example should address the concerns of comment EO31 to the effect that it needed more directly relevant and/or explanatory examples. 17:28:54 JA: +1 17:28:57 JR: +1 17:29:05 SH: +1 17:29:10 JS: +1 17:29:13 KP: +1 17:29:42 Resolution: Accept rewrite of 1.2.1 and its IER in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html 17:30:05 proposal: 17:30:15 GL: also proposes "Note: Throughout this document, all required behaviors may be provided as optional preference settings unless a success criterion explicitly says otherwise. For example, if a success criteria requires high contrast between foreground text and its background, the user agent may also provide choices with low contrast. A required behavior does not need to be the default... 17:30:16 ...option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise." 17:30:29 GL: To be added to "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes": 17:30:41 JR: +1 17:30:52 ja: +1 17:30:52 JA: +1 17:31:39 js: +1 17:31:50 Resolution: Add this Note to section titled "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes": Note: Throughout this document, all required behaviors may be provided as optional preference settings unless a success criterion explicitly says otherwise. For example, if a success criteria requires high contrast between foreground text and its background, the user agent may also provide choices with... 17:31:52 ...low contrast. A required behavior does not need to be the default option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise. 17:32:21 GL: Part 4, Warning User of Repair Text 17:33:21 JA: So this is a AAA...any implementation examples? 17:33:32 JA: At last hour to add in an unimplemented SC? 17:33:52 GL: I don't think its a particular compelling SC...but the example didn't have an SC 17:34:01 GL: But I'm ok to postpone this 17:34:24 JA: I'm ok to postpone... anyone else want to keep it 17:34:26 JS: No 17:37:21 Action: JS to remove example from 1.2.1: "Bintu is deaf and relies on captions to replace audio. Bintu selects a caption button for a video she wants to watch, and is informed that no captions exist but that the user agent will try to generate some captions through automated means. The player then analyzes the video soundtrack and provides speech-to-text translation served as captions.... 17:37:21 Created ACTION-887 - Remove example from 1.2.1: "bintu is deaf and relies on captions to replace audio. bintu selects a caption button for a video she wants to watch, and is informed that no captions exist but that the user agent will try to generate some captions through automated means. the player then analyzes the video soundtrack and provides speech-to-text translation served as captions.... [on Jeanne F Spellman - 17:37:22 ... due 2013-09-19]. 17:37:22 ...*Because she was warned, she will be prepared to encounter more errors in the captions than if they had been authored by humans, and more likely to recognize errors when they occur.*" AND save the GL proposed SC 1.2.3 from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html in the wiki 17:38:00 zakim, close item 3 17:38:00 agendum 3, GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html, closed 17:38:04 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:38:04 4. Are we ready for last call - Vote [from allanj] 17:38:42 JA: A long time ago EO sent comments? 2010? And now saying we didn't get them. 17:38:54 JA: We have to clear them? 17:39:10 JS: Yes, most are editorial... 17:40:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0100.html 17:42:31 JR: I don't agree with need for guideline handles...not used in wcag2, atag2 17:43:33 Resolution: Will not add "Handles" for Principles, and probably also Guidelines because inconsistent with WCAG2 and ATAG2 17:45:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2013Sep/0001.html 17:46:13 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html 17:46:13 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#intro-conf-levels 17:46:36 http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#intro_understand_levels_conformance 17:47:00 scribe: jallan 17:47:14 Topic: EO comments Levels of conformance 17:47:20 scribe: jam 17:47:24 scribe: jan 17:47:29 JR: ATAG2 just has a sentence in the guideline then everything else in implementing 17:48:12 GL: If we have resources to do it, seems better to do things like ATAG2 does...with lengthy explanation in Implementing doc 17:50:42 Resolution: Change the "Levels of Conformance" section to the way ATAG2 does theirs with a terse paragraph in the guidelines linked to a longer explanation in the Implementing doc 17:51:02 JA: Any other proposals? 17:51:22 JS: Text customization proposal from wiki...link? 17:51:52 Topic: Text customization 17:51:59 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Guideline_1.4_Text_Customization_Proposal 17:53:56 JA: Originally we have 1.4.1 and 1.4.2.... 17:54:34 JA: Going to be hard to get implementations...except for user style sheets... which cover all of this 17:54:55 JS: I don't think I want to start new SCs with new IERS 17:55:10 JS: let's just move the things she suggests moving 17:55:29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#gl-text-config 17:55:38 GL: Are we clear on the proposed changes 17:55:42 -Jeanne 17:56:10 JR: This is not a baked proposal 17:56:11 +Jeanne 17:56:22 JA: If we go to last call, we can do it after 17:56:38 KP: No IERs? Needs examples at this late date. 17:56:52 JA: My proposal is to take it up as a comment after last call. 17:58:36 KP: Could we get examples from her? 17:59:05 JA: On call examples not offered 18:00:46 JR: How much is covered by stylesheets? Couldn't we crack this out later? 18:02:37 JA: Any objection to doing this after last call? 18:06:10 JS: We can go to last call.... Judy will want the WG to approve final document. 18:06:52 JS: Resolution to say Group has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG 2.0. 18:07:10 JS: Yes 18:07:16 KP: Yes 18:07:17 +1 18:07:19 JA; Yes 18:07:21 GL: Yes 18:07:36 KP: Yes (see above in minutes) 18:07:56 KF: Yes (see above in minutes) 18:08:14 Resolution: UAWG has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG 2.0 18:08:30 JA: Pop...fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 18:10:04 JA: Thanks everyone for amazing mountains of work and stick-to-it-edness! 18:10:23 JR: You too Jim! 18:10:27 Bye 18:10:28 -Kim_Patch 18:10:30 -Jim_Allan 18:10:34 -Jan 18:11:36 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:11:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html Jan 18:11:43 RRSAgent, set logs public 18:13:52 zakim, please part 18:13:52 leaving. As of this point the attendees were [Microsoft], Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jeanne, Kim_Patch 18:13:52 Zakim has left #ua 18:14:00 rrsagent, make minutes 18:14:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:14:35 rrsagent, please part 18:14:35 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-actions.rdf : 18:14:35 ACTION: JS to remove example from 1.2.1: "Bintu is deaf and relies on captions to replace audio. Bintu selects a caption button for a video she wants to watch, and is informed that no captions exist but that the user agent will try to generate some captions through automated means. The player then analyzes the video soundtrack and provides speech-to-text translation served as captions.... [1] 18:14:35 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-irc#T17-37-21