User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

11 Sep 2014

See also: IRC log


Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, kford, Jan


<trackbot> Date: 11 September 2014

any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document

<kford> JS: Any comments/ objections to Jan's comments?

<kford> Sorry, that was JA:

Greg: are those going to link to definitions to the glossary or there are some
... don't think there's an entry for configuration settings

<kford> GL talking about some having glossary entries and some not.

Jan I can write a little section explaining what they are

<kford> JR: Maybe we need a section talking about what these are.

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0095.html

Greg: user interface doesn't work the way we define – is this just shorthand

Jan: I can fix these up

Jeanne: are you thinking a paragraph that would go in the introduction?

Jan: yes, explaining levels of conformance and things like that

Jeanne: I would put it right after using levels

Zakiim, take up next

approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation.

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html

Jeanne: where we ended with the last call was Greg was going to update language

<kford> Group reminding itself on the topic.

Greg: Mostly editorial. The third sentence of the definition.

<jeanne> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#def-element

Greg: I took the element type out and moved that into its own bullet item. Also made examples lists parallel

Jim: objections or comments?

<kford> JS: Is everyone good with GL wording?


<kford> I am fine with it.

<Greg> 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)."

<jeanne> RESOLUTION: accept Greg's wording of the definition of element and element type

Greg: second email about spellchecking
... I greatly increased the amount of intent

<kford> JS reading wording.

<kford> JS reading wording.

<kford> JA: That works.

<Greg> 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):

<Greg> 3.2.3 Spell Check: The user can have spelling assistance for editable text in rendered content. (Level AA)

<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 3.2.3:

<Greg> 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.

<Greg> 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...

<Greg> ...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.

<Greg> 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).

<Greg> Spell checking which highlights unrecognized words as they are entered is preferred over requiring the user to use a separate tool or editing pass.

<Greg> 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.

<Greg> 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.

<kford> Group looking for consensus.

<kford> On GLs writing.

<kford> Resolution: Group accepts GLs writing.

Revisions to Abstracts

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0098.html

<kford> JS: Went through some comments on abstract.

<kford> JS reads the text again.

<Greg> 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.

<Greg> 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.

<kford> Resolution: Group accepts editorial changes to abstract.

any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0099.html

<kford> JR: This wil be a new section under using levels.

Jan: these are the definitions of the five tags. I still need to write the intro sentences
... look back at ATAG and they didn't have it – hard to define

Greg: persistent or single session only?

Jan: that's larger than this

Greg: the note about recognized seems to come out of the blue.

Jan: they're just straight cut and paste from the glossary

Greg: seems a shame to just repeat them

Jan: I could just say when success criteria is applicable to the user interface and link that
... will come back with that shortly

what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria

Greg: discussing running link check

Jan: some talk in the document about implementing – self-referential, changed that?

<kford> KP and GL and JS working out how to ensure linking worked correctly.

<kford> JA: Asking if we absolutely have to do this?

<kford> Group agress to hold off on doing this extra verification.

any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0100.html

<kford> JR goes over his changes.

Jeanne: I like the intro paragraph

<kford> JS says she likes as does GL.

<kford> KF likes also.

<Greg> Looks good.


<kford> KP likes.

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

<kford> Can ne of you write, maybe Jan, exactly what you just said.

Jan: linking inside those bullet points

Jeanne: I can put anchors on each of the five bullets – what's linked

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

<jeanne> 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. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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].

<Greg> 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.

Jeanne: are we done making changes to the document and are we ready to publish it?

<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to add the Applies To section to the Introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1036 - Add the applies to section to the introduction [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-09-18].

Greg: is the stabilization draft a technical term?

Jan: no, it's just within the working group the one we think is right before the final one

Greg: so we are publishing it but not as the final working draft

consensus to publish

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..

<kford> JS: Does anyone object to publishing?

<kford> All respond with no.

<kford> Resolution: Group agrees to publish the next draft of UAAG 2.0.

<kford> RESOLUTION: Group agreed to publish next draft of UAAG 2.0 refernece.

what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria

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.

<AllanJ> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

<kford> Jeanne can you send minutes and such?

<kford> I would agree 100%. Outsiders would be bored completely with testing writing in this space.

<kford> That was test writing.

Jeanne: still work to do – at least a week before publishing
... next week starting with writing tests
... 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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to add the Applies To section to the Introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] 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. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-09-11 18:24:47 $

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)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: KimPatch
Inferring Scribes: KimPatch
Default Present: Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, kford, Jan
Present: Jeanne Greg_Lowney Jim_Allan Kim_Patch kford Jan

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 11 Sep 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: jeanne

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]