See also: IRC log
<AllanJ> title: UAWG Telecon
<KFord> zakim [microsoft] is kford
<Alan> I will have to leave in about 30 minutes. Other committments.
<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/
<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/
request for a separate announcement for surveys.
<AllanJ> JB: Definition should be first.
JB: Requests that the email subject is Survey: Fill Out for [date]
<JR> Introduction
<JR> Definition of authoring tool
<JR> Components of Web Accessibility
<JR> Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document
<JR> Levels of Conformance
<JR> Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
KF: the definition needs to go at the beginning, not at the end.
<JR> NOTE: Levels of confromance removed from ATAG2 intro
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#intro
<AllanJ> MH: likes order of ATAG from JR
WCAG puts their definition last.
JA: There is no precedent, so we can choose whichever order we want.
Resolved: The definition of User agent will go after the Overview.
JB: The definition of User Agent
could be a narrative in the beginning to socially get people
into the document.
... but that would give two different definitions, which could
be a problem. \
MH: Could give a link to the more formal definition.
s/\a problem.\a problem.
JA: Let's take time to work on a narrative definition.
<JR> user agent [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]
<JR> Any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content.
JB: Give a 10 minute time limit.
MH: The definition that Jan put up doesn't include anything about documentation.
JA: it doesn't include gmail, rrsagents and other web applications.
KF: Can you add in the last section that includes web content and web applications.
<Alan> web apps run within web browsers, but so do media players, etc.
<Alan> maybe group web apps with assistive technologies.
JA: If we change our definition of user agent, will that cause problems for the other documents.
JB: If the definition we have isn't accurate, we need to see how out of sync it is with WCAG. Since WCAG is in final recommendation, that is fixed.
<AllanJ> JR: UAAG1 definition part 1 - The software and documentation components that together, conform to the requirements of this document. This is the most common use of the term in this document and is the usage in the guidelines.
JB: ATAG doesn't say anything about web based or non-web based in the definition.
<AllanJ> JR: recommend drop UAAG1 part 1, and only use part 2 which aligns with ATAG and WCAG
KF: It is ok that we don't say web applications, because this is a basic definition and it gives people a sense of the ballpark we are talking about without leaving anything out that is critical.
<AllanJ> =1
JR: we can back it up with additional discussion that gives the scope without making it part of the normative section.
jeanne agrees to dropping part 1
No objections and individual agreement.
<AllanJ> Proposed: Any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content.
proposed to add as the first sentence: A user agent is any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content.
<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/WD-UAAG20-20081210/Introduction-Proposal20081223.html
A user agent is any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content. This document specifies requirements that, if satisfied by user agent developers, will lower barriers to accessibility.
<KFord> sounds good to me.
<AllanJ> +1
<AllanJ> JR: would like an H3 section on definition
<AllanJ> JS: so it would be Into, Overview, Layers, ..., then Definition
<AllanJ> JR: need to see how it all flows
<AllanJ> MH: would link to definition go to H# section or glossary
<AllanJ> JA: glossary
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/WD-UAAG20-20081210/Introduction-Proposal20090108.html
<AllanJ> MH: we may have 3 instances of the definition that all say the same Introduction, H3, and glossary
JR: Whatever we do, ATAG should do the same thing.
JB: We also have to look at the publishing schedule.
<AllanJ> JB: timing, ATAG and UAAG should do the same thing, but not critical until end stages
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to update the document Introduction with the definition and introductory paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Update the document Introduction with the definition and introductory paragraph [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-15].
<AllanJ> reviewed comments: fine piece of work. I understand the need for device independence. I was wanting some mention of platform issues (which related to this). Accessibility changes with disability, but also with environment, platform, bandwidth etc. UAAG is attempting to bridge these. Not sure what spatial and temporal independence means.
JS: The overview section comes from the F2F where different sentences were flagged to go into a conceptual overview. I had an action item to write one sentence, but realized that we needed to pull the whole section together. The sentences are pasted together with some wordsmithing to improve the flow.
JR: the bullet points do not map to our document, that could cause confusion.
JS: We could delete the sentence and bullets.
JB: Why don't we use our Principles there?
KF: This goal is achieved by using: list the principles.
This goal is achieved by constructing a user agent the complies with the following principles:
JR: Some users may have more than one disability... This isn't an overview, it is an answer to the question, "why are there so many options". The same thing with security. It is an answer to the question: What about security?
<AllanJ> JB: security. why in intro. should be in guidelines.
<AllanJ> JS: at F2F we agreed to keep these in the intro
<JR> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms
JB: There are issues that do seem to deserve their own heading.
<AllanJ> JR: if we need to call out perhaps a new section
KF: This is better than what we had, so I propose we go ahead with this intro for this publication and look at it again.
JR: WCAG put a note that the Working Group is still working on it and interested in feedback.
<AllanJ> KF: add disclaimer and request feedback to make document more consumable
KF: We could put it in the Status section: The Working Group is revising the Introduction and is looking for feedback that the issues are introduced in a manner that is clear.
JB: We can do it in the Status section and also add an Editor's Note.
<scribe> ACTION: JS top update the Status section and the announcements to add a request for feedback on the Introduction and add an Editor's Note that it is still being revised. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Top update the Status section and the announcements to add a request for feedback on the Introduction and add an Editor's Note that it is still being revised. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-15].
JR: Add: the group is still looking for the best place to place this information.
JB: We should look at the note
system in the WCAG draft. It interrupts people's flow of
reading it.
... If we have signicant concerns about including it without
the disclaimer, then we should put it in.
JR: Add the disclaimer just for the security paragraph.
JA: The editor's note asks if there will be advisory techniques.
<JR> JR: Think this part is too much: ", and documented common failures with examples, resource links and code."
JR: there will be advisory techniques, I think.
JA: We would have difficulty providing examples and code.
MH: It is a can of worms, take it out.
KF. It needs to go.
In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using UAAG, several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of sufficient techniques, resource links and code.
In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using UAAG, several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of sufficient techniques, and resource links.
In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using UAAG, several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria, a rich collection of sufficient techniques, and resource links.
JA: Fix spelling: Two principle have been added - should be principles.
MH: needs a comma in the last paragraph between cognitive and language.
<AllanJ> +1
<scribe> ACTION: js to edit Layers of Guidance with the notes above. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: JS to make a list of items that are in multiple places so that as we edit the document, all locations are updated. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Make a list of items that are in multiple places so that as we edit the document, all locations are updated. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-15].
JA: review the open actions and figure out how we can get them done, or say that they won't be done.
JB: I recommend scheduling a chunk of time on a weekly basis to work on the action items so they can be sent to Jeanne in time for the survey.
JA: What is the best way to coordinate with EO?
JB: THe best thing is for Judy to work with Shawn. Most groups do not have regular representation on EO.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/a problem. \a problem. Succeeded: s/a problem. /\a problem./ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jeanne Inferring Scribes: jeanne Default Present: +1.512.206.aaaa, kford, jallan, jeanne, Cantor, Judy, Mark_Hakkinen, JR Present: Kelly Jim Jeanne Alan Judy Mark WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Simon_Harper) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Simon Regrets: Simon WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0000.html Got date from IRC log name: 08 Jan 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne js[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]