W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

17 Jul 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
kford, Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Jan, Greg_Lowney
Regrets
kim, eric
Chair
JimAllan, KellyFord
Scribe
allanj

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 17 July 2014

<scribe> scribe: allanj

<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

SH06 4.1.7

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.

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)

discussing timing issues.

jr: testing is difficult, don't know where the delay is coming from.
... propose remove this SC

<kford> +1

jr: +1

<jeanne> JS: +1 to delete

ja: +1

kim has issues with the timing. large problem with speech input. Kelly - yes it is an issue but the UA has no control of those timing issues.

gl: support consensus of the group

RESOLUTION: remove SC 4.1.7 from the document

CA01 summary GL3

http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0006.html

jr: we need to review the summary- SC agreement after comments are done.

CA02 3.1.1

jim comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0007.html

gregs's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0011.html

jan's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0015.html

<Jan> ARIA politness levels http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#liveprops

3.1.1 a

jr: concerned about a specific SC for a technology. we already have SC to implement features of a technology so the UA should already be handling ARIA

current: a. Recognized messages that are low priority

proposed by CA01: a) Messages and content that are non-essential or low priority for the user

<Greg> Yes, we could reword the SC to remove content, making it only about UA UI, and add a Note stating that the equivalent with regard to content is covered by the other SC.

<Greg> That is, with regard to recognized low-priority notifications in content.

jr: how do we determine UA low priority messages from UAUI

kf: ARIA politeness is set by author. screen readers read aria messages from content though not from the UA

jr: testing issue...do I have to wait until the next UA update to test.

<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_311

jr: seems that our example

""Shirley has a cognitive disability and is distracted by the page flicker. A web page has a stock market ticker that is coded as having a WAI-ARIA low priority level, so she changes the browser's preference setting to indicate that regions with low priority level should not be automatically updated."

scribe: this may be changing the meaning of WCAG SC

jr: what is the fails for this?
... Acrobat Viewer, open a pdf file, it opens but inoperable, because of a pop under window, requesting an update.

gl: open a Word doc, the message pops up that macros are disabled but needed for the document to work?

<Greg> It seems that the "don't ask me this again" is separate from the "low priority" issues.

gl: this type of message vs the don't ask me again

jr: don't keep asking me for the same type of decision

ja: "do this always' do this only once

gl: settings - turn on and off certain types of notifications

jr: where you have asked for a decision, there is some mechanism to not repeat asking.
... what constitutes a stupid question. in W2013 if you have a doc not from your computer it asks about opening and macros

ja: how do we test this. there are messages we are so used to seeing that we ignore, or have permanently dismissed. how do we find them. there are likely dozens

jr: perhaps drop this. not testable.

js: commentors want it more strict, we are saying to drop it.

jr: thanks for calling it to our attention. but in group discussion we determined we could not test this.
... its a usability issue.

js: the COG TF wants it to me more strict

the addition to this SC is b)Messages, features and content that are not part of the core use-cases for the content.

ja: there is no way the UA can know what is the core use-case for the content.

kf: drop the entire thing 3.1.1

js: should keep b. Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing and c. Rendered content that is being updated or changing

jr: UAUI changes - media player with a moving progress bar, should a user be able to turn this off.
... need compelling use cases

js: will yield to group concensus

kf: this is a tough issue. am sure there are good use cases; we need to find how to test it.

gl: we know what we can recommend but what to require is a different thing

kf: browsers are making their interfaces more simple

jr: need testing requirements

js: how to test for the messages; what is important; what can be avoided;

Jim will talk to COGA and invite to group

CA03 3.1.1 b

current text: (b) Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing

comment CA03: CA03: Also we think it needs to be easy to do this - not just possible. So maybe add To ensure that it is easy to avoid or defer this content it should: Be not more then two steps, Such as: One step to select avoid or defer them and a conformation step. Only simple and clear text and symbols should be used in controls to avoid or defer this content Controls to avoid this type...

scribe: of content should be positioned above or next to the content that it refers to. Also the group is working to identify semantics that would make it possible to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user end. If this becomes possible and is supported, then it would be an acceptable alternative to make sure the Messages and content that are non-essential or low priority for the user...
... and Messages, features and content that are not part of the core use-cases for the content can be programmatically identified.

CA04 3.2

Suggestion: Filling in information is much slower and harder for people with cognitive disabilities. Therefore: Information should be easily retrievable such as via automatically saving the work so far. The user should be able to go back a step without losing what they have submitted. People with cognitive difficulties often have very low confidence in the accuracy of what they are...
... submitting and therefore the ability to review and amend easily is important. Also authors and agents should never try to confuse the user. For example, the users original selection / choice / offering should be selected by default not switched to the item they want to up-sell , such as expensive options being placed before the cheaper option that the user thinks they are selecting....
... (Obvious but worth spelling out anyway...). An example of this would be AVG antivirus that switches the user to premium edition and leaves it to the user to switch back. We would like to include: The original offering/selection should be selected by default and should not be switched automatically to an alternative If this is not acceptable maybe include: Label any alternatives clearly...
... Make it easy to select the original offering: The original offering should be positioned above or next to the alternative The original offering should be sized the same or bigger then the the alternative In the future we may have the semantics that would make it possible to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user end. If this becomes possible then it would be an acceptable...
... alternative to make sure the original selection can be programmatically identified.

**Discussion: this sounds like usability. The product sellers have arranged the content base on user studies to maximize 'conversion'. If and when semantics are available, and authors use them; browsers may have control over the display of the semantic elements. Until then, browsers cannot control this type of information.

Propose: not accepted.

<jeanne> I think this is mostly content, and not user agent

gl: some is about content, however...

jr: we don't have an SC for saving form content for later use.

gl: go to the same page, and have a page repopulated.

js: what about dynamic content?

jr: saving form entries for later reuse is not a bad thing

ja: what about save page as? I can recall the saved page and copy and paste

gl: not good enough, must auto fill

<jeanne> LastPass has extensions for major browsers that allows you to set up profiles for form data. https://lastpass.com/

COG comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2014Feb/0000.html

<Jan> ACTION: JR to start a draft SC re: saving certain form inputs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-999 - Start a draft sc re: saving certain form inputs [on Jan Richards - due 2014-07-24].

<scribe> ACTION: jim to tell Cog-TF that UAWG is dropping 3.1 as not testable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1000 - Tell cog-tf that uawg is dropping 3.1 as not testable [on Jim Allan - due 2014-07-24].

rrsagent: make minutes

<jeanne> RichS would be the perfect person to ask about it, as he is also an ARIA expert

repurposing aria politeness such that thing marked as off should not be live updated visually.

rrsagent: make minutes

rrsagent: make minutes

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: jim to tell Cog-TF that UAWG is dropping 3.1 as not testable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to start a draft SC re: saving certain form inputs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-07-17 18:36:57 $

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/topic: CA01 3.1.1/topic: CA02 3.1.1/
Succeeded: s/I think this is all content, and not user agent/I think this is mostly content, and not user agent/
Found Scribe: allanj
Inferring ScribeNick: allanj
Default Present: kford, Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Jan, Greg_Lowney
Present: kford Jim_Allan Jeanne Jan Greg_Lowney
Regrets: kim eric
Found Date: 17 Jul 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: jim jr

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]