17:01:52 RRSAgent has joined #ua 17:01:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-irc 17:01:54 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:01:56 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 17:01:57 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 17:01:57 Date: 10 July 2014 17:02:04 zakim, code? 17:02:05 rrsagent, set logs public 17:02:06 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:02:16 chair: jimallan, kellyford 17:02:22 zakim, code? 17:02:24 rrsagent, make minutes 17:02:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj 17:03:06 code is 82941 17:03:09 Greg has joined #ua 17:04:09 regrets: eric 17:05:09 regrets+ jeanne 17:07:00 topic: rewrite of 1.10.1 17:07:28 proposed: 17:07:32 1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA): 17:07:34 * label for a control or image (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes) 17:07:35 * caption for a table 17:07:37 * row and column labels for a table cell 17:07:55 scribe: allanj 17:08:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0014.html 17:08:11 jr: concerned about HTML mentioned in sc 17:08:42 ja: fine with leaving HTML out, just use label element 17:11:25 gl: in 2.3.3 we say landmark - this is a generic term, unless we qualify by saying aria-landmark. we should be clear 17:11:53 jr: we should do it same way through out document 17:12:24 Similarly, Summary of 2.6 uses "onmouseover" without explaining it's an HTML etc. attribute. 17:13:28 gl: fine with leaving out the example, assume it will be explained in implementing document 17:13:51 I'm okay omitting the entire parenthetical e.g. and explaining it in the Implementing document. I just tend to include parenthetical examples, perhaps too often. 17:13:56 proposed: 17:14:06 1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA): 17:14:08 * label for a control or image 17:14:09 * caption for a table 17:14:11 * row and column labels for a table cell 17:14:42 ja: any objections? 17:14:44 none heard 17:15:00 gl: examples need to go in the implementing doc 17:16:00 action: jeanne add 1.10.1 1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA): * label for a control or image * caption for a table * row and column labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc 17:16:00 Created ACTION-996 - Add 1.10.1 1.10.1 access related information: the user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (level aa): * label for a control or image * caption for a table * row and column labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. html label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc [on Jeanne F 17:16:01 ... Spellman - due 2014-07-17]. 17:16:51 close action-995 17:16:51 Closed action-995. 17:17:18 Chatzilla really should not bold text after an asterisk if it's followed by a space. 17:19:02 Action: jeanne to revise IER for 1.10.1 to match the new wording of the SC 17:19:02 Created ACTION-997 - Revise ier for 1.10.1 to match the new wording of the sc [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-07-17]. 17:21:03 I note that the Intent for 1.10.1 explicitly mentioned use of id and child elements, neither of which apply any more except in very limited cases (e.g. aria-labelledby). 17:21:58 topic: SH05 Principle 3 17:22:06 For the understandability principle, then isn't this a little all encompassing. There is nothing about simple language usage or graphic usage for people with a learning disability. So my question is understandable to whom? 17:22:51 http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ 17:24:04 jr: we have requirement that web-base user agents follow WCAG (simple language) AAA 17:25:00 ... had the same issue of ATAG, a11y of the platform based tool. is there a higher bar for web-based that platform-based. 17:25:43 jr: we used the 'key' parts of WCAG for the platform-based tools. Perhaps UAAG should do the same. 17:26:18 gl: do we need to add new SCs to cover understandable. 17:27:04 ja: perhaps the issue is with the term "understandable" 17:27:25 I doubt it's feasible for us to add a new SCs for understandability at this point. 17:28:00 jr: wcag could/should apply to software 17:28:59 s/add a new SCs/add a bunch of new SCs/ 17:29:41 FYI http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#understandable 17:29:46 kp: is the issue that Principle 3 is too broad 17:31:33 kp: P3 is an organizing principle, though it is not all encompassing 17:32:28 gl: simple language for interface 17:33:07 kp: is it more or less important in WCAG or UAAG. seems more in WCAG. 17:34:13 ... putting all of WCAG in UAAG would clutter the document. UAAG has chosen the bits we felt important 17:35:02 jr: what if in 5.1 we put a note that non-web UAs look at WCAG for interface design. 17:35:51 oops call dropped 17:37:40 kford has joined #ua 17:37:48 zakim, microsoft is kford 17:39:04 http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ 17:40:48 kp: if remove the part in 5.1.1 about web-based UA and just make it UAs, and point to wcagict 17:41:49 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: User agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria) 17:41:50 Note: To understand how this success criterion applies to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, refer to Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 17:43:51 gl: if you want to test FF for new 5.1.1... are we going to create use cases for every wcag SC to apply to UAs 17:44:42 jr: ATAG relies on wcag tests 17:44:55 gl: this scares me 17:45:26 jr: did you have a concern about old 5.1.1 for web-based UAs 17:45:40 gl: not sure there are any tests for WCAG2ICT 17:46:11 jr: re: evaluation methodology is out. 17:46:27 I assumed that the old 5.1.1 was testable because W3C had approved test cases for WCAG on web content, but probably not for WCAG2ICT. 17:47:14 ... no tests for WCAG2ICT compliance. 17:47:49 gl: what tests will UAWG have to create to allow developers to meet 5.1.1 (proposed) 17:48:02 ja: sounds like there are no tests. 17:48:38 jr: excellent point 17:49:26 jr: in the end, UAWG was trying to make some guidelines that go beyond basic software accessibility. 17:49:49 ... ok with leaving 5.1.1 as it was and not accepting SH05 17:50:28 ja: +1, we covered what we thought was important in Principle 3 17:51:16 gl: leaving 5.1.1. as is easiest course of action. otherwise a big can of worms. are there other reasons than covering Understandability 17:52:18 jr: will we create unintended new requirements base on the convergences of UAAG and WCAG 17:55:53 ja: add a note to principle 3 that UAWG chose the following to cover Understandability of the UA. If the developer wants to go further review WCAG2ICT for guidance. 17:57:11 gl: what about adding a note to 5.1.1 also. seems more appropriate. 17:57:31 jr: note only on 5.1.1 not principle 3 17:58:04 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria) 17:58:06 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is receommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces refer to Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 17:58:15 rrsagent, make minutes 17:58:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj 17:58:48 ja: +1 17:58:52 kp: +1 17:59:44 ja: any objections? 18:00:26 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria) 18:00:27 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 18:01:20 Take out "developers of"? 18:01:32 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria) 18:01:34 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 18:02:16 ("Non-web-based user agent user interfaces" is such a horrible noun-stack.) 18:02:39 Back to... 18:02:41 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria) 18:02:43 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 18:02:47 JR: +1 18:03:01 GL: +1 18:03:07 action: jeanne to add to 5.1.1 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications... 18:03:07 Created ACTION-998 - Add to 5.1.1 note: this success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). however, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the guidance on applying wcag 2.0 to non-web information and communications... [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 18:03:08 ... 2014-07-17]. 18:03:08 ...Technologies (WCAG2ICT). replacing old note. 18:05:00 jr: calling out UAUI in this doc may diminish the impact of 5.1.1 note, seems contradictory 18:05:07 gl: example? 18:05:30 jr: 2.1.5 & 2.1.6, 18:06:48 jr: 215 says UI, 216 say UAUI but say the same thing other wise 18:09:22 gl: note in 511 doesn't address comment about understandability 18:09:53 http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ 18:10:11 gl: graphic usage or simple wording. 18:10:54 Simon gave two examples of where Principle 3 failed to address aspects of understandability: simple language, and graphics as alternative to text. The note on 5.1.1 might address the first (in a roundabout way), but what about the second? 18:11:19 jr: it does. WCAG lots on wording, pronunciation, etc. nothing about graphics 18:12:32 ... media alternative for text 18:13:00 ... but, no requirement for media as an alternative for text. 18:13:21 If WCAG uses the term Understandability without addressing people who cannot read, then I guess we can, too. (Although of course it would be nice not to ignore those issues.) 18:13:50 jr: UAAG cannot go further than WCAG on media replacement for text. see cognitive task force 18:15:50 response - UAAG accepts, added note to 5.1.1, to encourage developers to incorporate WCAG into the process. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that were feasible and important 18:16:15 ... include text of the note. 18:18:17 Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that were feasible and important. 18:20:48 "While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and feasible."? 18:21:41 Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and feasible. 18:21:54 Just softening it a bit, acknowledging that he's in fact correct about his original observation. 18:22:27 RESOLUTION: Response to SH05: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and... 18:22:28 ...feasible. 18:22:52 Topic SH06 4.1.7 18:23:04 is about making API Calls be timely such that delays aren't perceived by users, but this is difficult if the software interfaced to us not timely, people may the perceive a delay. I think this needs to be a little more explicit. 18:23:33 4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchanges Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed at a rate such that users do not perceive a delay. (Level A) 18:24:24 ja: does this need specific timings... .5 seconds 18:24:43 jr: depends on computing environment 18:25:32 gl: not more explicit about time, but about APIs that are causing problems that are beyond the control of the UA 18:26:25 I think Simon's saying, not that we need to be explicit about a minimum time delay, but that the UA is not held responsible for delays outside of its control. For example, if the UA API function call the OS which takes a half second to return, that is not violating 4.1.7 because the UA did not itself introduce the delay. 18:28:27 How about "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that (the user agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that users would perceive the delay. (Level A)" 18:29:34 That is, "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that *the user agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that users would perceive the delay. (Level A)" 18:29:47 kf: this is useless without metrics. 18:30:03 kp: timing issues are huge with speech 18:30:40 kf: this is about how quickly an AT can build a list of UI elements 18:31:05 gl: well, AT queries UA, and the call returns (that is the cycle time) 18:31:42 ja: how do we test this. how do we know whose fault it is. 18:31:58 kf: we should remove this. 18:32:39 ... after further reflection this is not a testable criteria. General software performance suggests developers should be doing this anyway 18:33:06 kp: timing kills speech. timing cascades build and cause problems 18:33:27 kf: those delays are not caused by inter API communication 18:34:39 kf: IE with narrator - ask for list of UI elements, can take SECONDS. but the problem is not IEs fault. 18:35:10 kp: are you sure the UA never has anything to do with timing 18:35:47 I am a little concerned that some UA may implement accessibility API in an inefficient (slow) way because it's implemented solely to comply with a requirement, rather than actually to address the needs of users who rely on assistive technology. 18:35:50 kf: this is not testable. what is the appropriate number. 18:36:03 kf: 300 milliseconds 18:36:36 jr: need to test api call and screen reader processing. 18:36:57 kf: the causes of this are not the UA, they cannot fix it. 18:37:32 ... fine if we leave it in. 18:38:06 rssagent, make minutes 18:38:32 rrsagent, make minutes 18:38:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:38:49 present: jim, kelly, jan, greg, kim 18:38:52 rrsagent, make minutes 18:38:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj 21:28:30 kford has joined #ua 21:41:33 kford_ has joined #ua