IRC log of ua on 2013-04-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:26:17 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #ua
16:26:17 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-irc
16:26:19 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:26:19 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #ua
16:26:21 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
16:26:21 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 34 minutes
16:26:22 [trackbot]: Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16:26:22 [trackbot]: Date: 18 April 2013
16:54:13 [kford]: kford has joined #ua
16:54:31 [kford]: zakim, agenda?
16:54:31 [Zakim]: I see nothing on the agenda
16:55:16 [kford]: Agenda+ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/
16:55:17 [kford]: Agenda+ what can we do to finish UAAG20 - f2f, extended calls, ??
16:55:31 [kford]: rrsagent, make minutes
16:55:31 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html kford
16:59:38 [Zakim]: WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
16:59:45 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
17:00:55 [Jan]: Jan has joined #ua
17:01:02 [Jan]: zakim, code?
17:01:02 [Zakim]: the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan
17:01:24 [kford]: zakim, microsoft is kford
17:01:24 [Zakim]: +kford; got it
17:01:31 [Zakim]: +Kim_Patch
17:01:40 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:01:56 [Jan]: zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan
17:01:56 [Zakim]: +Jan; got it
17:02:03 [sharper]: sharper has joined #ua
17:02:35 [Zakim]: + +1.609.734.aaaa
17:02:36 [Greg]: Greg has joined #ua
17:02:43 [allanj]: Agenda+ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/
17:02:45 [allanj]: Agenda+ what can we do to finish UAAG20 - f2f, extended calls, ??
17:02:59 [Zakim]: +Greg_Lowney
17:03:12 [Eric_Hansen]: Eric_Hansen has joined #ua
17:03:12 [Zakim]: +Jim_Allan
17:03:12 [allanj]: zakim, close item 3
17:03:13 [Zakim]: agendum 3, https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/, closed
17:03:13 [Zakim]: I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:03:13 [Zakim]: 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/ [from kford]
17:03:23 [allanj]: zakim, close item 4
17:03:23 [Zakim]: agendum 4, what can we do to finish UAAG20 - f2f, extended calls, ??, closed
17:03:26 [Zakim]: I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:03:26 [Zakim]: 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/ [from kford]
17:03:30 [Zakim]: +??P13
17:03:31 [allanj]: scribe: allanj
17:03:37 [sharper]: zakim, ??P13 is sharper
17:03:37 [Zakim]: +sharper; got it
17:04:22 [allanj]: kp: LEAP motion gesture input
17:08:14 [KimPatch]: KimPatch has joined #ua
17:08:44 [allanj]: regrets: jeanne
17:09:13 [allanj]: zakim, agenda?
17:09:13 [Zakim]: I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
17:09:14 [Zakim]: 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/ [from kford]
17:09:14 [Zakim]: 2. what can we do to finish UAAG20 - f2f, extended calls, ?? [from kford]
17:09:15 [kford]: Scribe: kford
17:09:26 [kford]: zakim, take up item 1
17:09:26 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/" taken up [from kford]
17:09:31 [allanj]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results
17:09:51 [kford]: rrsagent, make minutes
17:09:51 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/18-ua-minutes.html kford
17:10:12 [kford]: Topic: Conformance Claim 7
17:10:20 [allanj]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq2
17:10:51 [kford]: JA going over comments found in survey
17:11:22 [allanj]: proposed wording: Supported Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria. Also list additional mark up language extensions (e.g. SVG, MathML) supported by the user agent.
17:11:58 [kford]: JR JA and GL all saying they made the same basic comment.
17:12:31 [kford]: JR: It boils down to the fact that we have a term web client technology and we should use that.
17:12:59 [kford]: Correction, that was web content technologies.
17:16:25 [allanj]: gregs proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent renders while conforming with UAAG 2.0. Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc.
17:19:20 [allanj_]: allanj_ has joined #ua
17:21:11 [allanj]: eh: for both included and excluded technologies - clarify - technology relied upon for claimed conformance level
17:22:27 [allanj]: jr: use 'included', used in ATAG. anything not included in the following list is excluded.
17:22:44 [allanj]: ... don't want to say relied upon. \
17:23:18 [allanj]: gregs proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent renders while conforming with UAAG 2.0.
17:24:38 [allanj]: eh: concerned about "while conforming" seems circular
17:25:55 [allanj]: action: jeanne to fix language about conforming
17:25:55 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-819 - Fix language about conforming [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].
17:25:59 [allanj]: Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc.
17:27:27 [allanj]: kp: any other technical issues?
17:27:31 [allanj]: silence
17:28:28 [allanj_]: allanj_ has joined #ua
17:28:39 [allanj]: topic: Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #8
17:28:51 [allanj]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq3
17:29:45 [allanj]: proposed wording: Excluded Web Content Technologies: If the user agent renders multiple formats (e.g. video codex, images), list the formats that cannot meet UAAG 2.0 success criteria (e.g a video codex that does not support captioning). For these listed technologies, the user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.
17:30:24 [allanj]: jeanne: CHANGE TO: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.
17:32:33 [allanj]: jr: UAAG allows conformer to scope the claim.
17:33:13 [allanj]: jr: ok with jeanne new wording.
17:33:56 [allanj]: gl: when completing claim form, never seen a list of conformance for html, svg, but not html.
17:34:05 [allanj]: ... better to not use the wording
17:34:15 [Jan]: JR: re-words and does not agree afterall
17:34:40 [allanj]: list of tech excluded. no testing of that format is included in the conformance claim
17:35:27 [allanj]: jr: we are talking about things that are not included, or they are making a claim on a subset of what they do.
17:35:51 [allanj]: kp: I thought 8 is about things a UA can't or won't do
17:36:16 [allanj]: gl: there are countless items that are possible for the "we don't do" list
17:36:34 [allanj]: kp: so the issue is there are too many of them.
17:37:32 [allanj]: jr: and what purpose is served. idea came out of ATAG. FF is always adding new rendered formats. but we don't want it to invalidate the UAAG claim.
17:37:49 [allanj]: kp: thinks jeannes language takes care of that.
17:38:25 [allanj]: gl: problem with "does not apply" has a different meaning technically
17:38:47 [allanj]: kp: is there better language than "does not apply"
17:39:22 [allanj]: jr: no. these listed items are NOT part of the claim. we don't say anything about them.
17:40:06 [allanj]: eh: out side of the claim. do we need to enumerate those outside the claim.
17:40:55 [allanj]: jr: outsiders are not aware of all of the thing that could be rendered by a UA.
17:41:42 [allanj]: gl: there is benefit to listing the items excluded from the claim.
17:42:07 [allanj]: jr: ah, claim for mpeg but not for quicktime.
17:43:03 [allanj]: ja: what's our wording/
17:43:30 [Greg]: Tweaking Jean's wording might be "For these listed technologies, the user agent does not claim that it conforms with UAAG 2.0."
17:44:19 [Greg]: Or "The user agent does not claim to conform to UAAG 2.0 when rendering these formats."
17:44:42 [Jan]: ATAG's wording : A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.
17:44:50 [allanj]: proposal: List any formats or technologies that the user agent DOES NOT render while conforming with UAAG 2.0.
17:44:54 [Greg]: Of course, technically the user agent doesn't claim anything, the conformance claim document does.
17:45:16 [Greg]: "For these listed technologies, no conformance with UAAG 2.0 is claimed."
17:45:30 [Jan]: JR: UAAG-ified: A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.
17:45:32 [allanj]: +1
17:45:40 [Jan]: I also like greg's
17:47:05 [allanj]: eh: like the merging of 7&8
17:47:18 [kford]: I would go with Jans.
17:47:30 [allanj]: gl: like separate, for clarity.
17:47:55 [Greg]: Either would be acceptable.
17:51:01 [allanj]: action: jeanne to merge 7 & 8 to say "A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately." and include the "Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as...
17:51:01 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-820 - Merge 7 & 8 to say "A list of the web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies rendered by the user agent that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately." and include the "Examples include web markup languages such HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, image formats such as... [on Jeanne F Spellman -
17:51:02 [trackbot]: ... due 2013-04-25].
17:51:02 [allanj]: ...PNG, scripting languages such as JavaScript/EcmaScript, specific video codecs, proprietary document formats, etc."
17:51:42 [allanj]: topic: Components of a UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claim #9
17:51:55 [allanj]: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results#xq4
17:52:07 [allanj]: close action-819
17:52:07 [trackbot]: Closed ACTION-819 Fix language about conforming.
17:52:38 [allanj]: proposed: Excluded Platform Technologies: If the platform (hardware or operating system) does not support a capability necessary for a given UAAG 2.0 success criterion, list the success criterion and the feature (e.g. a mobile operating system does not support platform accessibility services, therefore the user agent cannot meet success criterion 4.1.2). For these listed technologies, the...
17:52:39 [allanj]: ...user agent is not required to conform to UAAG 2.0.
17:53:00 [allanj]: to address the thorny problem of partial conformance for mobile devices that aren't supported by their platform
17:53:59 [allanj]: jeanne: proposed change to last sentence: For these listed technologies, the user agent can claim that the success criteria do not apply.
17:54:35 [allanj]: eh: is this a place where NA is appropriate.
17:55:03 [allanj]: gl: yes. it was so in my proposal.
17:55:42 [allanj]: eh: is this needed? could we say in the declarations area...this is NA because the platform does not support it.
17:56:32 [allanj]: jr: partially agree. weird stub - excluded platform technologies.
17:56:55 [allanj]: kp: being parallel with excluded web content technologies.
17:57:10 [allanj]: gl: ok with para, need a change in the title.
17:57:44 [allanj]: jr: this should be excluded because of platform limitations.
17:58:00 [allanj]: gl: UA may want to do it, but can
17:58:11 [allanj]: 't because of platform limitation
17:58:21 [Greg]: "Platform Limitations: If the platform..."?
17:58:50 [allanj]: kp: we have gone in circles about this.
17:59:35 [allanj]: gl: needs to be called out, to make folks aware. could be in declarations, but here also
18:00:26 [allanj]: ... change title to platform limitations use the same language.
18:00:44 [Greg]: This section acts as a summary of the claim, so I think it will be very helpful to readers to call out here that the UA fails in some SC because the *platform* fails.
18:00:55 [allanj]: eh: strong inclination to not be redundant
18:01:12 [allanj]: ... summary should be somewhere else.
18:01:37 [allanj]: kp: putting the entire context makes it clear, but not redundant.
18:02:01 [allanj]: eh: platform limitations the effect multiple SC
18:02:33 [allanj]: kp: these must be listed, and not required to conform. talking about how to deal with platform limitations not meeting them
18:02:51 [allanj]: eh: isn't this redundant with part C.
18:03:10 [allanj]: kp: if it were up there, the user would not see it.
18:04:37 [allanj]: eh: we are using "platform" in 2 different ways. if listed in excluded because of platform limitations they should be listed in excluded section.
18:05:17 [allanj]: ... we should be consistent in our use of "platform"
18:05:37 [allanj]: gl: title is Platform Limitations
18:05:53 [allanj]: eh: why is it not listed in #6
18:06:35 [allanj]: kp: have a picture, line drawing, but if you don't have the spaces between the lines, you don't have a picture.
18:06:55 [allanj]: ... the way we have it structured, is to prevent assumptions.
18:07:19 [Greg]: I'd say it's different from #6 because the former is things in the platform that allow the UA to claim conformance, while #9 is summarizing which SC the UA *does not* conform with because of things the platform fails to provide.
18:07:57 [Jan]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#conformance
18:08:22 [Greg]: #6 is the list of platforms the UA supports.
18:09:20 [allanj]: kp: in order to be compliant you must provide the following information.
18:09:50 [allanj]: jr. 6c should be hardware requirements
18:11:30 [allanj]: action: jeanne to change 6c to be Hardware requirements, not limitations
18:11:30 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-821 - Change 6c to be Hardware requirements, not limitations [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].
18:13:37 [allanj]: eh: under hardware requirements, in apr 4 meeting we had input devices listed. we seem to have lost them
18:13:58 [allanj]: kp: do you want to add one in. we want a real world example
18:14:41 [allanj]: kp: can use a mouse or pointing device,
18:14:59 [allanj]: eh: supports both keyboard and mouse.
18:15:32 [allanj]: kp: no. this is a listing of what the UA needs to meet the SC.
18:16:11 [allanj]: jr: must have ability to use a keyboard or pointing device
18:18:45 [allanj]: action: jeanne to add example "ability to use a keyboard" to 6c
18:18:45 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-822 - Add example "ability to use a keyboard" to 6c [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].
18:21:23 [allanj]: action: jeanne to change title of 9 to be "Platform Limitations"
18:21:23 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-823 - Change title of 9 to be "Platform Limitations" [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].
18:22:47 [allanj]: action: jeanne to move 9 platform limitations to 7, so we define the Platform Requirements (6), then list the Platform Limitations (7)
18:22:47 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-824 - Move 9 platform limitations to 7, so we define the Platform Requirements (6), then list the Platform Limitations (7) [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-04-25].
18:27:33 [allanj]: jr: trepidation of removing partial conformance, is that the top level label is we conform.
18:29:09 [allanj]: ... have a Swahili website, do everything right, but there is no Swahili screen reader. so the top level statement is Partial Conformance.