16:46:50 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:46:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-irc 16:46:52 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:46:52 Zakim has joined #ua 16:46:54 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:46:54 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 16:46:55 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:46:55 Date: 11 September 2014 16:58:28 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 16:58:35 +Jeanne 16:58:54 agenda+ any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document 16:58:56 agenda+ what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria 16:58:57 agenda+ approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation. 16:59:48 agenda+ Revisions to Abstracts 17:00:25 +[Microsoft] 17:00:42 zakim, order agenda 1,3,4,2 17:00:42 I don't understand 'order agenda 1,3,4,2', jeanne 17:01:19 Greg has joined #ua 17:01:22 agenda+ consensus to publish 17:01:23 +Greg_Lowney 17:03:05 +Jim_Allan 17:03:29 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:03:29 On the phone I see Jeanne, [Microsoft], Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan 17:03:31 +Kim_Patch 17:03:36 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:03:57 Jan has joined #ua 17:04:02 zakim, code? 17:04:02 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:04:08 zakim, [Microsoft] is really kford 17:04:09 +kford; got it 17:04:33 +[IPcaller] 17:04:40 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:04:40 +Jan; got it 17:05:04 zakim, agenda? 17:05:04 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 17:05:05 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:05:05 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:05:05 3. approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation. [from kford] 17:05:05 4. Revisions to Abstracts [from jeanne] 17:05:05 5. consensus to publish [from jeanne] 17:05:12 zakim, take up item 1 17:05:12 agendum 1. "any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document" taken up [from kford] 17:05:32 JS: Any comments/ objections to Jan's comments? 17:05:40 Sorry, that was JA: 17:05:43 Greg: are those going to link to definitions to the glossary or there are some 17:06:05 Greg: don't think there's an entry for configuration settings 17:06:12 GL talking about some having glossary entries and some not. 17:06:24 Jan I can write a little section explaining what they are 17:06:28 JR: Maybe we need a section talking about what these are. 17:06:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0095.html 17:07:25 Greg: user interface doesn't work the way we define – is this just shorthand 17:07:54 Jan: I can fix these up 17:09:02 Jeanne: are you thinking a paragraph that would go in the introduction? 17:09:12 Jan: yes, explaining levels of conformance and things like that 17:09:29 Jeanne: I would put it right after using levels 17:10:33 Zakiim, take up next 17:10:47 zakim, take up item 3 17:10:47 agendum 3. "approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation." taken up [from kford] 17:12:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html 17:13:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html 17:13:16 Jeanne: where we ended with the last call was Greg was going to update language 17:13:26 rrsagent, make minutes 17:13:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html kford 17:13:36 Group reminding itself on the topic. 17:14:17 Greg: Mostly editorial. The third sentence of the definition. 17:15:09 http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#def-element 17:15:25 Greg: I took the element type out and moved that into its own bullet item. Also made examples lists parallel 17:15:46 Jim: objections or comments? 17:16:44 JS: Is everyone good with GL wording? 17:17:07 +1 17:17:16 I am fine with it. 17:17:59 The correct third sentence should be "UAAG 2.0 also uses the term "element" more generally to refer to any discrete unit within the content (e.g. a specific image, video, sound, heading, list, or list item)." 17:19:05 RESOLUTION: accept Greg's wording of the definition of element and element type 17:19:09 Greg: second email about spellchecking 17:19:21 zakim, agenda? 17:19:21 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 17:19:23 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:19:23 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:19:23 3. approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation. [from kford] 17:19:23 4. Revisions to Abstracts [from jeanne] 17:19:23 5. consensus to publish [from jeanne] 17:19:26 Greg: I greatly increased the amount of intent 17:20:03 JS reading wording. 17:20:11 JS reading wording. 17:20:18 JA: That works. 17:20:31 Here is the revised text for 3.2.3 Spell Check that we approved on last week's call, and suggested expansion of its Intent section (the first paragraph being untouched, everything after that being new): 17:20:33 3.2.3 Spell Check: The user can have spelling assistance for editable text in rendered content. (Level AA) 17:20:34 Intent of Success Criterion 3.2.3: 17:20:36 Users with various disabilities benefit from spell checkers. The ability to check spelling is particularly important for users with disabilities such as dyslexia that significantly increase the likelihood of misspelled words. Spellcheckers also alert blind and low vision users to errors in text entry. 17:20:37 Spell checking is only expected in editable text in content, most commonly text input controls and form fields. It is not required on text input fields that are part of the UA user interface, such as an address bar or File Open dialog box. Spell checking is also not required on static, read-only, or disabled text elements, controls, and fields in content, except when they display... 17:20:39 ...text the user can edit indirectly (e.g. static text that the user can alter using nearby buttons), or when the user agent is in an authoring mode that allows the user to edit text that would otherwise be static. 17:20:40 Spell checking should be available regardless of how the text was entered. For example, text may be entered by the user typing, pasted from the clipboard, initialized by the content (e.g. the HTML value attribute), set programmatically by scripts or assistive technology, or filled in by a feature of the user agent itself (e.g. auto-complete). 17:20:42 Spell checking which highlights unrecognized words as they are entered is preferred over requiring the user to use a separate tool or editing pass. 17:20:43 Spell checking should be optional, so that it can be avoided by users who find it too distracting, or for whom the highlighting makes the text less legible. 17:20:45 Note: It is recommended that user agents also provide assistance with grammar, as well as spelling. Grammar can pose more difficulty than spelling for people with some cognitive disabilities or whose native language is signed. 17:23:08 Group looking for consensus. 17:23:16 On GLs writing. 17:23:29 AllanJ has joined #ua 17:23:39 Resolution: Group accepts GLs writing. 17:23:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:23:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html kford 17:24:09 zakim, close item 3 17:24:09 agendum 3, approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation., closed 17:24:11 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:24:11 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:24:30 zakim, take up item 4 17:24:30 agendum 4. "Revisions to Abstracts" taken up [from jeanne] 17:24:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0098.html 17:25:15 JS: Went through some comments on abstract. 17:27:26 JS reads the text again. 17:29:58 I'd prefer something replace "applications that retrieve and render web content" as that's not strictly true (they don't have to do both), but since this is non-normative it's probably okay. 17:30:58 Editorial, but second paragraph would match the order things are in the document if best practices comes between Intent and Examples, as we include best practices in the Intent section, before the Examples sections. 17:33:23 Resolution: Group accepts editorial changes to abstract. 17:33:29 zakim, close item 4 17:33:29 agendum 4, Revisions to Abstracts, closed 17:33:31 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:33:31 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:33:37 zakim, agenda? 17:33:37 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 17:33:38 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:33:38 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:33:38 5. consensus to publish [from jeanne] 17:33:47 zakim, take up item 1 17:33:47 agendum 1. "any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document" taken up [from kford] 17:34:03 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:34:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0099.html 17:34:41 JR: This wil be a new section under using levels. 17:34:56 Jan: these are the definitions of the five tags. I still need to write the intro sentences 17:36:29 Jan: look back at ATAG and they didn't have it – hard to define 17:36:39 Greg: persistent or single session only? 17:37:25 Jan: that's larger than this 17:38:15 Greg: the note about recognized seems to come out of the blue. 17:38:16 Jan: they're just straight cut and paste from the glossary 17:38:18 Greg: seems a shame to just repeat them 17:38:29 Jan: I could just say when success criteria is applicable to the user interface and link that 17:39:26 Jan: will come back with that shortly 17:39:45 zakim, agenda? 17:39:45 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 17:39:46 1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document [from kford] 17:39:46 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:39:46 5. consensus to publish [from jeanne] 17:40:09 zakim, take up item 2 17:40:09 agendum 2. "what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria" taken up [from kford] 17:40:49 Greg: discussing running link check 17:42:30 Jan: some talk in the document about implementing – self-referential, changed that? 17:47:14 KP and GL and JS working out how to ensure linking worked correctly. 17:48:26 JA: Asking if we absolutely have to do this? 17:49:02 Group agress to hold off on doing this extra verification. 17:50:11 zakim, take up item 1 17:50:11 agendum 1. "any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document" taken up [from kford] 17:50:26 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0100.html 17:50:29 JR goes over his changes. 17:51:17 Jeanne: I like the intro paragraph 17:51:37 JS says she likes as does GL. 17:51:40 KF likes also. 17:51:42 Looks good. 17:52:24 +1 17:52:43 KP likes. 17:54:46 Jan: the tag would go here into the applied to session with the appropriate bullet and then within the appropriate bullet if there's a defined term that term would go out to the definition 17:55:43 Can ne of you write, maybe Jan, exactly what you just said. 17:55:51 Jan: linking inside those bullet points 17:55:53 Jeanne: I can put anchors on each of the five bullets – what's linked 17:56:36 Greg: make these things in the applies to block link to this applies to section, then my script will see it's already a link 17:57:26 action: jeanne to global replace the terms in each Applies To section to the Intro bullet points, and then link the Intro bullet points to their definition, if applicable. 17:57:27 Created ACTION-1035 - Global replace the terms in each applies to section to the intro bullet points, and then link the intro bullet points to their definition, if applicable. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-09-18]. 17:57:43 The key is that "UA user interface" will always be a link: if it's in an Applies To block it will link to the bullet item in the Applies To section of the Intro; otherwise it will link to the definition in the glossary. 17:58:35 Jeanne: are we done making changes to the document and are we ready to publish it? 17:58:55 action: jeanne to add the Applies To section to the Introduction 17:58:55 Created ACTION-1036 - Add the applies to section to the introduction [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-09-18]. 17:59:13 Greg: is the stabilization draft a technical term? 17:59:14 Jan: no, it's just within the working group the one we think is right before the final one 17:59:25 zakim, close item 1 17:59:25 agendum 1, any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document, closed 17:59:26 Greg: so we are publishing it but not as the final working draft 17:59:27 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:59:27 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:59:39 zakim, agenda? 17:59:39 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 17:59:41 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 17:59:41 5. consensus to publish [from jeanne] 17:59:49 zakim, take up item 5 17:59:49 agendum 5. "consensus to publish" taken up [from jeanne] 17:59:54 Jeanne: what we want is for people who commented on the last draft to say okay I'm good with my comment. That's the purpose of this draft. Then we can go to the next phase.. 18:00:17 JS: Does anyone object to publishing? 18:00:37 All respond with no. 18:00:57 Resolution: Group agrees to publish the next draft of UAAG 2.0. 18:01:54 RESOLUTION: Group agreed to publish next draft of UAAG 2.0 refernece. 18:02:08 zakim, close item 5 18:02:08 agendum 5, consensus to publish, closed 18:02:09 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 18:02:09 2. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria [from kford] 18:02:21 zakim, take up item 2 18:02:21 agendum 2. "what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria" taken up [from kford] 18:03:19 Jeanne: here's the plan – we are going to publish with the minimum of time limit for comments that we are allowed to, which I believe is three weeks. Also on the day we publish I will be sending out emails to all the people who commented asking them to approve our changes based on the comments. 18:12:31 http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html 18:13:25 Jeanne can you send minutes and such? 18:16:00 I would agree 100%. Outsiders would be bored completely with testing writing in this space. 18:16:08 That was test writing. 18:17:07 -kford 18:18:13 rrsagent, make minuts 18:18:13 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minuts', AllanJ. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:18:16 Jeanne: still work to do – at least a week before publishing 18:18:21 rrsagent, make minutes 18:18:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html AllanJ 18:18:54 Jeanne: next week starting with writing tests 18:20:30 Jeanne: we could use the same method as MATF with the wiki grid set up so we can see which are done, which are needed to be done and who is working on them 18:23:19 -Jan 18:23:34 -Greg_Lowney 18:23:38 -Jim_Allan 18:23:50 -Jeanne 18:24:03 rrsagent, make minutes 18:24:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html KimPatch 18:24:31 -Kim_Patch 18:24:33 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended 18:24:33 Attendees were Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, kford, Jan 18:24:42 rrsagent, make minutes 18:24:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html KimPatch 18:25:42 rrsagent, bye 18:25:42 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-actions.rdf : 18:25:42 ACTION: jeanne to global replace the terms in each Applies To section to the Intro bullet points, and then link the Intro bullet points to their definition, if applicable. [1] 18:25:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-irc#T17-57-26 18:25:42 ACTION: jeanne to add the Applies To section to the Introduction [2] 18:25:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-irc#T17-58-55