W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

12 Sep 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
[Microsoft], Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jeanne, Kim_Patch
Regrets
Eric
Chair
jimAllan, kellyFord
Scribe
Greg, Jan, jallan, jam

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 12 September 2013

Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf

<Greg> 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.

<Greg> Jim: Draft charter is at the link provided.

<Greg> 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.

<Greg> Jim read the Objective for the task force.

<Greg> Jim: Could add something about mobile browsers.

<Greg> scribe: Greg

<blockquote> Objective

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):

The creation of mobile techniques for WCAG using HTML5, ARIA, CSS and JavaScript (primarily the open web stack);

The development of design guidance or mobile web accessibility best practices;

Review of existing resources that may exist outside W3C space.

Approach

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...

scribe: resources. This will be decided after the development of an initial, more detailed set of requirements.

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.

</blockquote>

There were no objections.

Jan: Not sure if the entire group joins or if individual join.
... Probably need a resolution in favor, and then individuals will need to explicitly join the task force as well.

Resolution: UAWG agrees to participate in the joint task for between UAAG WG and WCAG WG on mobile accessibility

Jeanne: It probably involves at least one one-hour meeting per week for those individuals who participate.

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

<Jan> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0020.html

<Jan> Small wording fix: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0093.html

<Jan> Other wording fixes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0090.html

<kford> for the record I will vote to try last call at this point.

<Jan> JS: +1

<Jan> Scribe: Jan

<allanj> ja: +1

GL: Rewrite looks ok...just pointed out small [mobile] annoyance

Jan: +1

<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0098.html

KP: No objection

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

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

JA: GL had proposed rewording

<allanj> Proposed:

<allanj> 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)

<allanj> a. The user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with text values that are also available to assistive technologies.

<allanj> b. The user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content available programmatically (and not via fields reserved for text alternatives).

GL: No that's the old text
... Proposed text:

<Greg> <blockquote>

<Greg> 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)

<Greg> a. the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives *by substituting* text values that are also available to assistive technologies.

<Greg> b. the user agent makes *other available* metadata related to the non-text content available programmatically, *but not via fields reserved for text alternatives*.

<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 1.2.1:

<Greg> 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...

<Greg> ...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,...

<Greg> ...but not substitute repair text in ways assistive technology will mistake it for author-provided text alternatives.

<Greg> Examples of Success Criterion 1.2.1:

<Greg> 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....

<Greg> ...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...

<Greg> ...purpose of the image.

<Greg> </blockquote>

<Greg> Greg: I've marked the changed phrases in asterisks.

<Greg> 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.

JA: +1

JR: +1

SH: +1

JS: +1

KP: +1

Resolution: Accept rewrite of 1.2.1 and its IER in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html

<allanj> proposal:

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...
... option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise."
... To be added to "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes":

JR: +1

<allanj> ja: +1

JA: +1

<allanj> js: +1

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...
... low contrast. A required behavior does not need to be the default option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise.

GL: Part 4, Warning User of Repair Text

JA: So this is a AAA...any implementation examples?
... At last hour to add in an unimplemented SC?

GL: I don't think its a particular compelling SC...but the example didn't have an SC
... But I'm ok to postpone this

JA: I'm ok to postpone... anyone else want to keep it

JS: No

<scribe> 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.... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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 -

<trackbot> ... due 2013-09-19].

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: *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

JA: A long time ago EO sent comments? 2010? And now saying we didn't get them.
... We have to clear them?

JS: Yes, most are editorial...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0100.html

JR: I don't agree with need for guideline handles...not used in wcag2, atag2

Resolution: Will not add "Handles" for Principles, and probably also Guidelines because inconsistent with WCAG2 and ATAG2

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2013Sep/0001.html

<allanj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#intro-conf-levels

http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#intro_understand_levels_conformance

<allanj> scribe: jallan

EO comments Levels of conformance

<allanj> scribe: jam

<allanj> scribe: jan

JR: ATAG2 just has a sentence in the guideline then everything else in implementing

GL: If we have resources to do it, seems better to do things like ATAG2 does...with lengthy explanation in Implementing doc

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

JA: Any other proposals?

JS: Text customization proposal from wiki...link?

Text customization

<allanj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Guideline_1.4_Text_Customization_Proposal

JA: Originally we have 1.4.1 and 1.4.2....
... Going to be hard to get implementations...except for user style sheets... which cover all of this

JS: I don't think I want to start new SCs with new IERS
... let's just move the things she suggests moving

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#gl-text-config

GL: Are we clear on the proposed changes

JR: This is not a baked proposal

JA: If we go to last call, we can do it after

KP: No IERs? Needs examples at this late date.

JA: My proposal is to take it up as a comment after last call.

KP: Could we get examples from her?

JA: On call examples not offered

JR: How much is covered by stylesheets? Couldn't we crack this out later?

JA: Any objection to doing this after last call?

JS: We can go to last call.... Judy will want the WG to approve final document.
... Resolution to say Group has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG 2.0.
... Yes

KP: Yes

<allanj> +1

JA; Yes

GL: Yes

KP: Yes (see above in minutes)

KF: Yes (see above in minutes)

Resolution: UAWG has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG 2.0

JA: Pop...fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
... Thanks everyone for amazing mountains of work and stick-to-it-edness!

JR: You too Jim!

Bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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.... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-12 18:14:06 $

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)

Succeeded: s/Objective/<blockquote>Objective/
Succeeded: s/annoymnce/annoyance/
Succeeded: s/.2.1/1.2.1/
Found Scribe: Greg
Inferring ScribeNick: Greg
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Found Scribe: jallan
Found Scribe: jam
Found Scribe: jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Scribes: Greg, Jan, jallan, jam
ScribeNicks: Greg, Jan
Default Present: [Microsoft], Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jeanne, Kim_Patch
Present: [Microsoft] Jim_Allan Greg_Lowney Jan Jeanne Kim_Patch
Regrets: Eric
Found Date: 12 Sep 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: js

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]