See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 April 2011
<jeanne> temporary zakim code 82942
<jeanne> temporary zakim code 82942
<Jan> thx
<jeanne> kelly, new code temporary zakim code 82942
<Jan> new code temporary zakim code 82942
<JAllan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Guideline_2.7
<JAllan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110406/#gl-configure-controls
<JAllan> accessibility [mostly media]
<JAllan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110406/#gl-control-inaccessible-content
<JAllan> mechanism.http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110406/#gl-focus-mechanism
<JAllan> information is provided for each link (Level AAA)
<JAllan> :http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110406/#gl-info-link
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110428/MasterUAAG20110426.html
<JAllan> above is new editors draft
<KimPatch> having trouble calling in. I'm getting a conference is restricted message.
<JAllan> kim use temporary zakim code 82942
<KimPatch> with 82942 I get a conference is full message
<JAllan> kim do you have a skype name
<KimPatch> yes, kimpatch
<JAllan> jan will skype you in
<Jan> kim I have sent a skype contact request to you
<kford> Scribe: KFord
JA goes over what's left to do.
JA: I propose we start with the smaller items.
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110428/MasterUAAG20110426.html
<JAllan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110428/#gl-configure-controls
<JAllan> wiki http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Keyboard,_Focus,_and_Navigation_Restructuring
<Jan> Kim has joined but is having mic issues
Group now reviewing proposals on 2.1.4.
GL reads through proposed changes.
<JAllan> New 2.1.4 - combining old 2.1.2 and 2.1.12
<JAllan> proposed new 2.1.4: The user can override any keyboard shortcut including recognized author supplied shortcuts (e.g. accesskeys) and user interface controls. Exceptions can be made for conventional bindings for the operating environment (e.g. arrow keys for navigating within menus). (Level A)
JA: Any objections to this?
<JAllan> kim +1
<JAllan> +1
JR: This is actually a AAA in ATAG.
<JAllan> opera allows overriding keystrokes
SH: We should think about harmonizing.
GL: AAA might be too far.
Group continuing to talk about combining and priority.
<JAllan> KF: we should have 2 SC 1 at A one at AAA, on for user interface, one for author keystroke
<Greg> It's possible the old 2.1.2 and 2.1.12 were *supposed* to be only about "user-defined" "shortcuts and UI controls" rather than about "user defined shortcuts" and "UI controls".
KP: This is going to be more and more of a problem.
<JAllan> KP: this will be an ongoing problem. ctrl-f is find, but also defined in google docs. ... user not sure which will fire
<Jan> JR: Aside: Here's how ATAG2 handles cases where there is a need to for separate reqs: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#sc_a312
JR: In ATAG we had a concept of no keyboard traps.
GL: We have possibillity of
separating configurability between UI and content and priority
level.
... Third is clarifying that exception was optional and not
required.
JA: Going back in Feb we had a long talk about this and dropped 2.1.12 to line up with ATAG.
<Greg> So three issues: 1. Should we split configurability of content from UI? 2. Priority levels for both. 3. Proposed rewording of exception to clarify UA are neither required nor prohibited from allowing the user to reconfigure platform-standard keyboard shortcuts.
<JAllan> previous discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011JanMar/0050.html
<JAllan> 2.1.2 (former 4.1.2) Specify preferred keystrokes:: : The user can override any keyboard shortcut including recognized author supplied shortcuts (e.g. accesskeys) and user interface controls, except for conventional bindings for the operating environment (e.g., for access to help). (Level A)
<Jan> scribe: Jan
<JAllan> 2.1.10 (former 4.1.10) Override of UI Keyboard Commands: : The user can override any keyboard shortcut binding for the user agent user interface except for conventional bindings for the operating environment (e.g. access to help). The rebinding options must include single-key and key-plus-modifier keys if available in the operating environment. (Level AA)
<JAllan> 2.1.11 (former 4.1.11) User Override of Accesskeys: : The user can override any recognized author supplied content keybinding (i.e. access key). The user must have an option to save the override of user interface keyboard shortcuts so that the rebinding persists beyond the current session. (Level AA)
JA: These seem to be very close
to each other
... So what does 2.1.2 mean?
KF: When look at 2.1.11...confusing...says nothing about ui ...until the end
JA: Let's take them as a
unit...2.1.11 needs to have that last bit fixed
... looks like 2.1.2 says any keybindings can be
overriden
... 2.1.10, 2.1.11 add persistence session to session
KF: Ctrl F is a conventional
keybing so not covered
... JR: We have an SC covering clash between web apps and
browsers for keystrokes
JA: All three are tied together
KP: Another google docs example,
+FF +mouseless browsing
... Google docs does not allow mouseless browsing in some
cases
... User needs to have full control
GL: Sounds like these are all just a mess....should KP and I work offline?
JS: Agree we should move on
KF: What does this do to new 2.1.4
GL: We'll figure out what to do with them
<JAllan> ACTION: Greg to review 2.1.2 (and 2.1.10, 2.1.11) from http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110428/#gl-keyboard-access and work with Kim and Jim. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-528 - Review 2.1.2 (and 2.1.10, 2.1.11) from http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110428/#gl-keyboard-access and work with Kim and Jim. [on Greg Lowney - due 2011-05-05].
JA: it's now 1:01pm..ET
<JAllan> I am on, jan, greg, are on.
<JAllan> 2.1.5 No Keyboard Trap [former 2.1.3, name change]
<JAllan> no objections heard.
Resolution: All agree to 2.1.5 No Keyboard Trap
Resolution: All agree to 2.1.6 on http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Keyboard,_Focus,_and_Navigation_Restructuring
<jeanne> jeanne notes that numbering may have to change again because of ordering by level. We agree to ignore that for today, and jeanne will fix the numbering order later.
<kford> no objections.
<JAllan> no objection
Resolution: All agree to 2.1.7 on http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Keyboard,_Focus,_and_Navigation_Restructuring
<JAllan> Important command functions (e.g. related to navigation, display, content, information management) are easily available using a single or efficient sequence of keystrokes or key combinations. (Level AA)
A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
<kford> This I like.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20110426/#sc_a313
<JAllan> +1 from kim, simon, jim
<JAllan> discussion of wording.
<JAllan> 2.1.8 Make Important Command Functions Efficient: Important command functions (e.g. related to navigation, display, content, information management) are more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA)
<JAllan> GL: we already have SC for direct navigation, shortcut keys...compare with 2.3.1
<JAllan> this seems redundant.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to add 2.1.8 text (above) to the document with an editor note to check for redundancy when 2.1 is complete. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-529 - Add 2.1.8 text (above) to the document with an editor note to check for redundancy when 2.1 is complete. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
JA: Not hearing objections
in http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Keyboard,_Focus,_and_Navigation_Restructuring
JA: Objections?
KF: Only to the general overlap problem
JA: OK but we'll deal with that later
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to look at IER for the new 2.1.8 and compare with the IER for ATAG A.3.1.3 and update as necessary. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-530 - Look at IER for the new 2.1.8 and compare with the IER for ATAG A.3.1.3 and update as necessary. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
GL: Contains 4 SCs
<kford> +1.
MH: Looks good
+1
JA: OK
Not Resolution: All accept 2.2.1 Sequential Navigation Between Elements [replaces 1.9.8 Bi-Directional and 2.1.8 Keyboard Navigation]
<JAllan> new wording: The user can move the keyboard focus backwards and forwards through all enabled elements in the current viewport. (Level A)
Resolution: All accept new 2.2 restructuring
MH: Raises problem of "recognized" elements
<JAllan> Previous SC
<JAllan> 2.1.8 (former 4.1.8) Keyboard Navigation:: The user can use the keyboard to navigate from group to group of focusable items and to traverse forwards and backwards all of the focusable elements within each group. Groups include, but are not limited to, toolbars, panels, and user agent extensions. (Level AA)
<JAllan> 1.9.8 (former 3.11.8) Bi-Directional: : The user can move the keyboard focus forward or backward to any enabled element in the viewport. (Level A)
GL: But note this is not just things in the tab order.
<JAllan> JR: can we wrap document in conformance assumptions
<JAllan> ...one item would be "Recognized" elements.
JR: Called "Conformance Applicability Notes" in ATAG2
<kford> This works for me.
<JAllan> ...we have this throughout the document
JS: But also in favour sticking recognized into the relevant SCs
JA: Maybe Jeanne, Kelly and I should huddle on this next week
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to meet with Jim and Kelly to draft Conformance Notes that would be basic assumptions (like "recognized") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-531 - Meet with Jim and Kelly to draft Conformance Notes that would be basic assumptions (like "recognized") [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
MH: I'm ok with it being at the top of the doc
<JAllan> gl: seem to have lost the moving between groups of icons (toolbars), etc. they are viewports.
<JAllan> jr: toolbars are not viewports.
<JAllan> gl: viewports definition is in need of clarification.
<JAllan> gl: a toolbar is a container for a group of controls.
<jeanne> ACTION: jim to schedule review of the definition of viewport, to address the issue of navigation between groups of controls. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-532 - Schedule review of the definition of viewport, to address the issue of navigation between groups of controls. [on Jim Allan - due 2011-05-05].
<sharper> scribe: sharper
GL: How broad is our defn of
toolbars
... Want to say the same thing about frames
... more generic than toolbars, say, containers - which we can
then define
KF: Does another w3c group already have referenced this to maintain conformity
GL: what would be the example of what is not a group?
<JAllan> 2.1.8 (former 4.1.8) Keyboard Navigation:: The user can use the keyboard to navigate from group to group of focusable items and to traverse forwards and backwards all of the focusable elements within each group. Groups include, but are not limited to, toolbars, panels, and user agent extensions. (Level AA)
KF: viewport is a recognised term in W3C
JR: OK with both inc 2.2.1
GL: structural navigation is to parallel navigation in our approach
JR: does structural navigation and take care of group parts
JA: Sounds like a good idea
JR: group recognition is really just structural navigation
GL: Giving alternative exemplar
JR: maybe these can be just combined into a version, we see there is a big loophole around one
GL: need to strengthen the other success criteria
JR: like 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
GL: the issue was did we lose the ability to navigate between groups, Jim Allen suggests not.
<mhakkinen> +q
<mhakkinen> lucidchart.com
MH: using the keyboard model I would not be sure how to navigate in this application
ack
MH: wondering where the
application developers role finishes and the user agent role
begins
... a naive user will expect people to work differently than
the application developer may have allowed for in the
ARIA
... the issue is the identification of all the shortcuts that
are available to control the applications
KP: there is a hot key reference but there doesn't seem to be a lot of help
JA: there is an issue, but is there anything more I missing, MH: I'm not sure but something is just bothering me
MH: if a user agent conforms to UAAG 2.0 then there may be the problem if the ARIA overrides this
KP: there are some other issues with this site to the toolbars change and it seems to be a complicated interface there is a lot there
ISSUE: we need to think about this (f a user agent conforms to UAAG 2.0 then there may be the problem if the ARIA overrides this) more.
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-85 - We need to think about this (f a user agent conforms to UAAG 2.0 then there may be the problem if the ARIA overrides this) more. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/85/edit .
<Jan> +1
taking a break to 10 minutes
<mhakkinen> I'm writing a couple of paragraphs on the issue.
MH: is writing a couple of paragraphs regarding issue 85
JA: anybody have any objections to the wording for SC 2.2.1?
GL: should be changed to recognised
<JAllan> The user can move the keyboard focus backwards and forwards through all recognized enabled elements in the current viewport. (Level A)
JR: should be dovetailed into the ARIA container elements, so I would like to be present in the discussion off-line
<JAllan> Note: include mark on the action-532 and include aria-container
<JAllan> 2.2.1 The user can move the keyboard focus backwards and forwards through all recognized enabled elements in the current viewport. (Level A)
JA: let's look at the intent of examples
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to add new guideline from wiki (2.2) and SC 2.2.1 to the document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-533 - Add new guideline from wiki (2.2) and SC 2.2.1 to the document. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
<JAllan> I am ok with EIR for 2.2.1
<Jan> +1
+1
<Greg> +1
Not sure about 'Sooj'...
<Greg> Feel free to substitute new names.
<KimPatch> +1
<JAllan> no worries on names thats an editorial thing and they will be 'normalized'
resolved: Jeanne to Update
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to add EIR from wiki (2.2.1) to the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-534 - Add EIR from wiki (2.2.1) to the document [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
issue: 2.2.2
<JAllan> 2.2.2 Sequential Navigation Between Viewports [NEW]
<JAllan> The user can move the keyboard focus backwards and forwards between viewports, without having to sequentially navigate all the elements in a viewport. (Level A)
JA: any objection to adding this to the document and the wording therein?
<JAllan> +1
JR: I would like to clarify their
are the chrome viewpoints and viewpoints within the content
which can be controlled by the authors such as the frame or
div
... so when we're talking about something which is embedded in
something we are just talking about the depth?
... we are talking about a depth first traverse of the tree
right?
GL: you'll notice that exactly how is not specified, it is left open, we could add something to the intent to ensure it is the depth first
JA: to me what this is saying is that this success criteria is equivalent to the F6 which is available in most browsers
GL: if you look at the example this is exactly what it says
JA and JR resolving confusion
JR: this seems clear enough
<kford> This is fine to me now.
<mhakkinen> call dropped... can't get back in.
JR: we are clear that we are talking about sibling viewports, for instance we're moving from frame to frame to frame to frame without going deeper?
<Jan> Mark...I can skype you in if you give me your skype name?
<mhakkinen> mhakkinen
<mhakkinen> thx
JH: do we need to state this exquisitely in the intent that we are talking about sibling navigation only?
GL: yes I think they need to do this, do we need to do it now?
JA: we can just add the term sibling into this success criteria so that we make it “sibling viewport”
GL: users may be confused that the focus is moving just through the viewport is and not moving to the address bar as they wished
JA: can you take an action GL to reword this intent, GL assents
<scribe> ACTION: Greg to view the issue of viewports and the sibling navigation thereof in more detail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action08]
<Greg> I think moving between sibling viewports is incorrect, because if the user types F6 to move to a frame, then Tab to move to a sub-frame, they would be confused if F6 now only moves between sub-frames and no longer takes them back up to top-level frames, the address bar, etc.
<scribe> ACTION: Greg to view the issue of viewports and the sibling navigation thereof in more detail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-535 - View the issue of viewports and the sibling navigation thereof in more detail [on Greg Lowney - due 2011-05-05].
resolved: sibling issue aside this can now go in thedocument
<JAllan> ACTION: Jeane to add EIR and 2.2.2 into the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jeane
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to add EIR and 2.2.2 into the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Add EIR and 2.2.2 into the document [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
renumbering from 1.9.9 and moving down into 2.2.3 with a minor change to the text
JA: let's move on to the intent and examples
MH: I have a possible problem with the term mental map as opposed to my suggestion of expectation as mental map implies a certain model is already present
wordsmithing te term expectation to accurate expectation, or accurate prediction
KP: likes accurate expectation
MH: likes accurate expectation
KF: are we expecting the content
authors to do too much, in general the content authors would
not need to do anything
... it is implied that content authors are expected to define
the expectation
GL: wordsmithing on-the-fly but not meeting KFs requirements
<Greg> Kelly, WCAG 2.0 has "2.4.3 Focus Order: If a Web page can be navigated sequentially and the navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability. (Level A)" which says authors should do their part as we mention in our Intent.
KF: suggests - the success criterion insures content navigation (GL: will be consistent between browsers) whether the user agent or other is handling…
<Greg> The reason for this SC is that browsers will be consistent on the tab order they provide WHEN the content author didn't explicitly define one.
<Jan> From UAAG 10: "If the author has not specified a navigation order, allow at least forward sequential navigation, in document order, to each element in the set established by provision one of this checkpoint."
JA: let's start with the sentence
above 'The reason for this SC is that browsers will be
consistent on the tab order they provide WHEN the content
author didn't explicitly define one.' in the intent
... any other problems with the intent examples or resources?
all agree this is okay
resolved: with this additional sentence in the intent 'The reason for this SC is that browsers will be consistent on the tab order they provide WHEN the content author didn't explicitly define one.'
GL: in the process of explaining his and KP's rationale
<kford> 2.2.4 needs to be optional beyond that I'm fine with it.
<JAllan> do you mean AAA
GL: it is optional in that the wording says that the user 'can have' as opposed to' must have'
JS: can we find a browser which implements this?
JR: this is nice to have but I'm agreeing with JS about the implementation problem, MH agrees.
KP: Shall we make this a Triple-A?
JS: we needed implementations for
Triple-A to
... if we don't know of any implementations we should remove it
even though it's nice to have
KF: clarifies that he would just like this to be optional.
JA: discussing different behaviours within form controls as examples. Trying to verify that this applies to everything or nothing and is not variable. KP agrees and elaborates the point.
<Greg> How about adding to intent: However, keyboard users who can see the entire screen may very well benefit from having wrapping without being interrupted by a pop-up dialog box, so ideally this behavior should be under the user's control.
JA: this would be a radical change to browsers
KF: clarifies whether the conformance claim could apply this to specific parts
JR: suggest this would not be the case using a keyboard example
resolved: place in the document, but with Triple-A, and then remove if we don't find any application when we look for exemplar cases
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to add 2.2.4 from the wiki to the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-537 - Add 2.2.4 from the wiki to the document [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
JA: any objections the word change? No objections.
<Greg> ACTION: Greg and Kim to write IER for "Direct Navigation to Important Elements" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-538 - And Kim to write IER for "Direct Navigation to Important Elements" [on Greg Lowney - due 2011-05-05].
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to change title of 2.3.1 to Direct Navigation to Important Elements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action14]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-539 - Change title of 2.3.1 to Direct Navigation to Important Elements [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
JA: skipping 2.3.2
<JAllan> proposed wording 2.1.6 The user can have any recognized direct commands (e.g. accesskey) in rendered content be presented with their associated elements (Level A)
<JAllan> old wording: 2.1.6 (former 4.1.6) Present Direct Commands in Rendered Content:: The user can have any recognized direct commands (e.g. accesskey) in rendered content be presented with their associated elements (e.g. "[Ctrl+t]" displayed after a link whose accesskey value is "t", or an audio browser reading the value or label of a form control followed by "accesskey control plus t"). (Level A)
GL: explaining the rationale for the changes
JA: any objections to this? No
objections for the intent and examples for 2.1.6, it
seems.
... changing wiki to reflect cross-referencing to its twin
GL: does anyone disagree with how we got rid of 2.7.1?
Silence…
MH: notice that in the examples of new 2.3.3 Mnemonic letters are not often done automatically, i.e. the author would have controlled it not the user agent.
<mhakkinen> not JR ... JR
agree to remove example 3 from the examples for 2.1.6 under 2.3.3
<Greg> (That is move the third example from the SC about content to the SC about UA UI.)
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to add 2.3.3 from the wiki into the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action15]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-540 - Add 2.3.3 from the wiki into the document [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
RESOLUTION: wiki for 2.3.3 to be added to the document
<JAllan> ACTION: JA add underline of menu items (keyboard shortcuts) to 4.1.6 Properties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action16]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-541 - Add underline of menu items (keyboard shortcuts) to 4.1.6 Properties [on Jim Allan - due 2011-05-05].
<KimPatch> calling now
JA: minor change…
<JAllan> old: 2.7.1 (former 4.7.7) Discover navigation and activation keystrokes: : Direct navigation and activation keystrokes are discoverable both programmatically and via perceivable labels. (Level A)
<KimPatch> shoot -- I can't. Other line is in use.
JA: this does not have an EIR either, let's deal with the minor change first
<JAllan> new: 2.3.4 Present Direct Commands in User Interface. The user has the option to have any direct commands (e.g. keyboard shortcuts) in the user agent user interface be presented with their associated user interface controls (e.g. "Ctrl+S" displayed on the "Save" menu item and toolbar button). (Level AA)
<Jan> jeanne, I'' call you in
<JAllan> 2.1.7 (former 4.1.7) Present Direct Commands in User Interface:: The user has the option to have any direct commands (e.g. keyboard shortcuts) in the user agent user interface be presented with their associated user interface controls (e.g. "Ctrl+S" displayed on the "Save" menu item and toolbar button). (Level AA)
GL: things we just remove the
in-line example which wasn't appropriate here.
... purely editorial change, we can add it back if people want,
it was a parenthetical which we could lose.
JA: any objections to this?
<kford> No objection.
GL: the example for 2.1.7 is kind of hard to follow and to be supplied down thus
<JAllan> 2.3.4 The user has the option to have any direct commands (e.g. keyboard shortcuts) in the user agent user interface be presented with their associated user eatterface controls. (Level AA)
RESOLUTION: agreed to inclusion with removal of the parenthetical
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to add new wording for 2.3.4 (2.7.1) into document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action17]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-542 - Add new wording for 2.3.4 (2.7.1) into document. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
Renamed from "Override of Accesskeys" to "Allow Overriding of Accesskeys"
JR: it's one thing to say remap it's another thing to say I'd like this possibly malicious web app to not in my shortcuts
JA: do we need something to say who will get the keyboard shortcut first, I don't think it's here, JR: what do you think?
GL: if this can be found in the draft so far do we want to do this through the call or shell JR: take an action item?
JA: if anybody should do this it should be me I'll find it
GL: I don't remember anything like this in my recent reading of the guidelines
<JAllan> ACTION: JA to find or create the SC for order of keyboard processing (script, UA, accesskey) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action18]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-543 - Find or create the SC for order of keyboard processing (script, UA, accesskey) [on Jim Allan - due 2011-05-05].
GL: is 2.3.5 redundant to these
success criteria were talking about with regard to keyboard
Configuration?
... should we talk about recognise keyboard shortcuts as
opposed to access keys which is very specific to HTML
all: general assent that shortcuts should be used as opposed to access keys in the terminology
<JAllan> ACTION: ja to rewrite 2.3.5 to be technology agnostic...author defined keyboard shortcuts in rendered content [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action19]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-544 - Rewrite 2.3.5 to be technology agnostic...author defined keyboard shortcuts in rendered content [on Jim Allan - due 2011-05-05].
JA: “author defined keyboard shortcuts”
<Greg> Is "user-supplied keyboard shortcuts" the same as "keyboard shortcuts in rendered content"?
RESOLUTION: JA to action this
<JAllan> 2.5.1 Provide structural navigation [NEW]
<JAllan> [We required the user agent let the user specify the set of important elements for structured navigation, but did not actually have a success criterion requiring structured navigation itself. We should add one or more.]
JA: skipping guideline 2.4 and 2.5 as these are just reordering
GL: we have not written as we just realised there was a hole and therefore we added it
JA: any thoughts?
JR: this is good to have may be tricky but I think it'll be okay, MH: agrees
JA: we need to flesh this out JR: will take this as an action item
JR: will also do the EIR
<Jan> ACTION: JR to SC and EIR for 2.5.1 Provide structural navigation [NEW] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action20]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-545 - SC and EIR for 2.5.1 Provide structural navigation [NEW] [on Jan Richards - due 2011-05-05].
RESOLUTION: JR to to take this further
MH: change the name and added “all role”
JA: any objections?
No objections
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to add 2.5.2 to document (new name and include sc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action21]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-546 - Add 2.5.2 to document (new name and include sc) [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
RESOLUTION: Jeanne to add this to the document, but EIR's are not present
JA: no changes to guidelines 2.6,
2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11
... moving to guideline 3.4, success criteria 3.4.1
<JAllan> old: 3.4.2 (former 5.4.2) Unpredictable focus:: The user is informed when the user agent changes focus. The user agent provides a global option to block uninitiated focus changes.
<JAllan> New: 3.4.1 The user can prevent focus changes that are not a result of explicit user request. (Level A)
<JAllan> 3.4.1 Avoid Unpredictable Focus Change. The user can prevent focus changes that are not a result of explicit user request. (Level A)
GL: it's clarifying the note in the wiki
<Greg> Do people think this SC rewrite adequately covers both what was 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, meaning give them control over INITIAL focus when the page loads AND focus changes thereafter?
JA: it is not sure that the intent is clear enough
<Greg> If we want to make that more clear, we could for example add to the SC "on page load and thereafter".
JR: is happy with the way things are now, even though it doesn't explicitly say it
<JAllan> intent is clear, sc is a bit fuzzy
KF: I like your weight is
JA: any objections?
<jeanne> I like it. excellent examples
SH: Correctling 'KF: I like your weight is' to KF: I like it the way it is
<JAllan> ACTION: JS to remove 3.4.1 from the document. Add 3.4.1 from the wiki to replace 3.4.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html#action22]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-547 - Remove 3.4.1 from the document. Add 3.4.1 from the wiki to replace 3.4.2 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-05-05].
<Greg> People OK with us removing the user agent option to simply notify the user when focus changes without their request?
JA: no objections
RESOLUTION: remove the user agent option to simply notify the user will focus changes at their request
JA: planning for the future with regard to completing IERs
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/KP/KF/ Succeeded: s/Resolution/Not Resolution/ Succeeded: s/JA/JR/ Succeeded: s/roll/role/ Succeeded: s/Note/Not/ Succeeded: s/a /the/ Succeeded: s/JI/JA/ Succeeded: s/at your/accurate/ Succeeded: s/admitted/expected/ Succeeded: s/requiremens/requirements/ Succeeded: s/limitation/application/ Succeeded: s/MH/JR/ Succeeded: s/in/eat/ Found Scribe: KFord Inferring ScribeNick: kford Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Found Scribe: sharper Inferring ScribeNick: sharper Scribes: KFord, Jan, sharper ScribeNicks: kford, Jan, sharper Default Present: +1.425.895.aaaa, +1.512.206.aabb, sharper, JAllan, Greg, Jeanne, kford, +1.617.325.aacc, KimPatch, Mark_Hakkinen, Mark Present: +1.425.895.aaaa +1.512.206.aabb sharper JAllan Greg Jeanne kford +1.617.325.aacc KimPatch Mark_Hakkinen Mark Found Date: 28 Apr 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-ua-minutes.html People with action items: greg ja jeane jeanne jim jr js kim WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <Jan> Kim has joined but is having mic issues WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <Jan> Kim has joined but is having mic issues WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]