See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 12 March 2015
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015JanMar/0044.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Main_Page#Implementation
<scribe> scribe: allanj
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/
discussion of Note vs Spec. for Mobile
Henny Swan's talk at CSUN referenced UAAG20 several times
discussion of where something happened in rendering vs UI, is too complicated.
open item 1
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015JanMar/0044.html
js: remove independent
implementations, change to implementations on 2 user agents or
combination of UAs with extensions
... keep 2 steps
... remove note on independent implementations and a, b, c,
bullets
... remove "independent" from step 2.
gl: have 2 implementations doesn't make it any more likely that other UAs will do something than having only 1.
js: 2 implementations is a legacy from 2 interoperable for the languages
jr: what about "tools that fully meet"
js: was never in the proposal, even in the first draft. We don't have any implementation that is even close.
Exit Criteria
The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group intends to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation as soon as the following conditions are met. We expect to complete testing and show evidence of meeting all exit criteria, and change or remove the at-risk items as needed, no earlier than @@[date]@@.
1. Define test cases: Update the set of tests needed to cover all UAAG normative success criteria.
2. Test Implementations: Perform these tests and verify at least two results on user agents, and to the extent needed, combinations of user agents and extensions.
ja: any objections to using the above as the Exit Criteria
jr: +1
gl: +1
kp: +1
<jeanne> +1
+1
close item 1
open item 2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Main_Page#Implementation
http://w3c.github.io/UAAG-Implementations/
ja: do we have to test all types of UA - desktop, mobile, media players, readers, apps, etc
js: don't need a Level A for each category, but find implementations in each category
testing - http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Tests_for_CR
how to test... http://w3c.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#principle-AT-access
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to run a diff from September to current ED draft to get all the changes to update the wiki page of tests. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1074 - Run a diff from september to current ed draft to get all the changes to update the wiki page of tests. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2015-03-19].
and the implementation report page
http://w3c.github.io/UAAG-Implementations/
media players: bbc, ami, quicktime, real, wmp,
jr: fluid from OCAD
Readers: Epub reader,
<Jan> Fluid Infusion Video Player: http://build.fluidproject.org/videoPlayer/demos/Mammals.html
mobile: Safari - ipad, mercury - iphone, atomicweb - iphone, ff on droid, chrome on droid,
jr: pick the ones that have a good chance of passing,
<Jan> brb
brb
back
<Jan> back
kp: use mercury and puffin on iphone, best chance of meeting SCs
gl: category of UA...embedded browsers, blue ray players, televisions, yikes...
jr: apple TV
for use with github
readers: readium chrome, epubreader on FF
4.1.1 Support Platform Accessibility Services: The user agent supports relevant platform accessibility services. (Level A)
gl: the key thing ... we can do spot checking, but to do an exhaustive check is nearly impossible
for 4.1.1 we can check the documentation
<Greg> For example, we can easily use Inspector to verify that a Windows-based browser is exposing things through MSAA, but it would be hard to impossible to check that it exposes everything it should.
<Greg> If it fails to expose generated content (e.g. list numbers, like IE does), does it still pass?
and we could use other inspector tools on other platforms to verify
js: is this in the documentation?
ja: should say somewhere that a UA supports platform accessibility API, bounce keys, repeat keys, highcontrast mode
js: create a test page with all of the elements, to see what is passed to the accessibility api
gl: generated content, image alt,
longdesc, accesskeys,
... what are the specifics we need to test for
... there is not good way to test in 4.1.3
... really difficult. test UI components to see what is not
exposed in the accessibility API, then find another way the
browser allows the user to do the task that does expose all of
the info to the accessibility api
<Greg> Jeanne points out that we may need to rephrase 4.1.3 so that UA can pass either by providing a workaround or not needing any. Otherwise we run the risk of having all UA get N/A here, none passing, and thus fail our exit criteria.
<jeanne> 'ATAG: The authoring tool does not automatically generate web content after the end of an authoring session or authors can specify that the content be accessible web content
<jeanne> Another example from ATAG: The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met.
rewrite for 4.1.3
<jeanne> 4.1.3 Provide Equivalent Accessible Alternatives: The UA user interface functionality is exposed through platform accessibility services, or the user agent provides equivalent functionality that can be exposed through the platform accessibility service. (Level A)
<jeanne> 4.1.3 Provide Equivalent Accessible Alternatives: UA user interface functionality is exposed through platform accessibility services, or the user agent provides equivalent functionality that can be exposed through the platform accessibility service. (Level A)
<Greg> That looks fine.
+1
kp: looks good
Resolution: change 4.1.3 to Provide Equivalent Accessible Alternatives: UA user interface functionality is exposed through platform accessibility services, or the user agent provides equivalent functionality that can be exposed through the platform accessibility service. (Level A)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/discussion of Note vs Spec./discussion of Note vs Spec. for Mobile/ Succeeded: s/something./something than having only 1./ Succeeded: s/js: was removed ago/js: was never in the proposal, even in the first draft. We don't have any implementation that is even close./ Succeeded: s/=1/+1/ Succeeded: s/, smart phones// Succeeded: s/exhustive/exhaustive/ Succeeded: s/4.13/4.1.3/ Found Scribe: allanj Inferring ScribeNick: allanj Default Present: Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Jan Present: Jeanne Jim_Allan Greg_Lowney Kim_Patch Jan Found Date: 12 Mar 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]