16:58:21 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:58:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc 16:58:23 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:58:23 Zakim has joined #ua 16:58:25 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:58:25 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 16:58:26 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:58:26 Date: 27 June 2013 16:58:34 rrsagent, set logs public 16:59:29 regrets: simon 16:59:50 Agenda+ Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success Criteria 17:00:01 Agenda+ Proposed "programmatically available" definition 17:00:11 Agenda+ Crowd source implementation - moving forward 17:00:22 Agenda+ We have Comments!! Dealing with them 17:00:38 Agenda+ writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address comments for specific SCs 17:00:54 Agenda+ Face to Face Reminder 17:01:35 Jan has joined #ua 17:01:40 zakim, code? 17:01:40 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:01:43 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 17:01:48 +Jeanne 17:01:50 + +1.425.883.aaaa 17:02:30 +[IPcaller] 17:02:43 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:02:43 +Jan; got it 17:02:45 + +1.609.734.aabb 17:02:50 +Jim_Allan 17:03:19 zakim, who's here? 17:03:19 On the phone I see Jeanne, +1.425.883.aaaa, Jan, +1.609.734.aabb, Jim_Allan 17:03:21 On IRC I see Jan, Zakim, RRSAgent, allanj, trackbot 17:03:58 +[Microsoft] 17:04:05 - +1.425.883.aaaa 17:04:23 Greg has joined #ua 17:04:31 zakim, aabb is really Eric 17:04:31 +Eric; got it 17:04:45 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:04:50 Eric_Hansen has joined #ua 17:05:04 +Kim_Patch 17:05:34 jeanne has joined #ua 17:05:39 +Greg_Lowney 17:05:46 zakim, who is here? 17:05:46 On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan, Eric, Jim_Allan, [Microsoft], Kim_Patch, Greg_Lowney 17:05:48 On IRC I see jeanne, Eric_Hansen, KimPatch, Greg, Jan, Zakim, RRSAgent, allanj, trackbot 17:06:27 zakim, [Microsoft] is really Kelly 17:06:27 +Kelly; got it 17:08:18 -Greg_Lowney 17:08:23 scribe: Kim 17:08:31 zakim, open item 6 17:08:31 agendum 6. "Face to Face Reminder" taken up [from allanj] 17:08:46 +Greg_Lowney 17:08:59 Kelly: inquired about rates again 17:10:21 Kelly: doing research on other hotels 17:10:42 Kelly: will have the information today or tomorrow 17:11:59 zakim, close item 6 17:11:59 agendum 6, Face to Face Reminder, closed 17:12:00 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:12:00 1. Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success Criteria [from allanj] 17:12:18 zakim, open item 1 17:12:18 agendum 1. "Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success Criteria" taken up [from allanj] 17:12:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html 17:12:39 Jim: have we finished this? 17:13:12 Jim: suggestion that synthesizers should switch voices automatically 17:14:14 Jeanne: we talked about it and Jan suggested to include in another SC, not sure if we did 17:14:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0098.html 17:15:23 Jan: does it clip automatically only in response to a Lang tag? 17:15:23 Eric_Hansen_ has joined #ua 17:15:51 Kelly: most screen readers today are responsive to the Lang tag 17:16:08 Jeanne: proposal is user has control of it so one step command that will allow you to switch languages 17:16:25 Kelly: today either the user has no control or they can say turn off that language switching 17:17:04 Greg: heuristics often fall down when page contains pieces of multiple languages. Doesn't recognize passages of a foreign language embedded in something else. That's the main case I can see were having manual control would be useful. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether it would be an appropriate AA setting or not 17:17:57 Jim: proposal on the table to add a new SC 1.6.5, Yan said we might squeeze it into 1.6.1, but then we have whether it's the user or the system itself that switches it. 17:18:15 Jim: does someone want to take it up or do we want to push it to next 17:18:34 Greg: 161 is A, I don't see it as that critical 17:19:08 Kelly: UAAG next – are we deficient without this 17:19:14 Jim: I could go with next 17:19:56 Jan: we don't put a ton of requirements on them, maybe we can just keep it, maybe we should remove the requirement about making it easy 17:20:19 JR: Suggests this: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech is produced, the user can change the language (AA). 17:20:37 Greg: I defer to the group – I wish we had some users who actually are more familiar with this thing – specifically in multilingual situations which I assume is where it would be most useful. 17:21:54 Eric: W3C specs – try to be judicious about how much repair work they do – this is a manual repair issue – at least by following the specs involved it doesn't appear to be presented in the right language so it's a way of manually repairing the content, or its rendering. That would argue for not having it as a high priority and just being careful about including stuff that is sort of... 17:21:55 ...repair work 17:23:03 Greg: let's say I speak Swahili, no native support, but I can say use this module. If that breaks, given the manual override can I access that page that would be otherwise inaccessible 17:23:29 Greg: my attempts to come up with an example where it might be justifiable that it would completely block access of the feature was not there 17:24:05 JR: Again...in the style of 1.6.1: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech is produced, the user can change the language, when more than one language is available (AA). 17:24:07 Jeanne: I thought about that too which is why I didn't propose it as a level a I think it's more for people with multi-languages and also for writing as well. If you're composing an email – the ability to command French for the next sentence is pretty necessary in any multilingual world 17:25:05 JR: Again...in the style of 1.6.1: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available, then the user can change the language. (AA) 17:25:15 JR: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available, then the user can change the language. (AA) 17:25:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html 17:26:18 Jim: I'm fine with adding it with a change that Jan proposed 17:26:51 Jim: any objections with leaving intent and examples as they are and using the Jans new wording 17:26:57 no objections 17:27:12 Jim: are we okay at AA? 17:27:22 JR: OK with AA 17:27:38 Jim: not hearing any objections to AA 17:27:53 action: Jeanne to add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available, then the user can change the language. (AA) and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html 17:27:54 Created ACTION-840 - Add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available, then the user can change the language. (AA) and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-07-04]. 17:27:54 allanj has joined #ua 17:28:24 resolved: accept 165 as AA 17:28:47 s/165/1.6.5 17:29:02 Zakim, close item 1 17:29:02 agendum 1, Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success Criteria, closed 17:29:04 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:29:04 2. Proposed "programmatically available" definition [from allanj] 17:29:17 zakim, open item 2 17:29:17 agendum 2. "Proposed "programmatically available" definition" taken up [from allanj] 17:29:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0116.html 17:29:47 Greg: sent email about that just before the meeting 17:30:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0121.html 17:31:47 Greg: we need to be more explicit about not excluding – not limiting it to published 17:32:00 Greg: almost comes off as examples as how it can be done rather than requiring that 17:32:23 proposed: programmatically available 17:32:25 Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. This means making use of platform accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through... 17:32:27 ...the use of ARIA). 17:33:18 Greg: I didn't think that it came across as this is explicit as opposed to examples 17:34:33 Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities using platform accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through... 17:34:33 ...the use of ARIA). 17:34:36 Jim: this is similar to the ATAG definition 17:34:49 From WCAG2: programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) 17:34:51 determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities 17:34:52 Example 1: Determined in a markup language from elements and attributes that are accessed directly by commonly available assistive technology. 17:34:54 Example 2: Determined from technology-specific data structures in a non-markup language and exposed to assistive technology via an accessibility API that is supported by commonly available assistive technology. 17:34:56 ATAG def - http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG20/#def-Programmatically-Determined 17:35:52 Jan: seems okay, Jeannes change 17:36:39 +1 jeanne's change 17:37:18 Eric: use – is the use of the term present or extract and use. Is it about content that is going to be presented to users or if it's programmatically determinable, isn't it about any kind of information regardless of whether it's for presentation? 17:37:29 Jeanne: do we even need that – is this a just about extracting information 17:37:36 Eric: in a way that can be used by other software 17:38:01 Jan: in a way others can make use of it 17:38:43 Eric: not sure it has to be that restrictive or not – maybe it does 17:39:06 Jeanne: are there other ways to be programmatically determined? 17:39:36 Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information in different modalities relying on platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA). 17:40:00 Eric: do we need programmatically available if we already have something like programmatically determinable? Is what were trying to get across the same idea as what WCAG calls programmatically determinable? 17:41:22 Eric: on revision – do we need the phrase in different modalities – makes sense when we had the word present, but right now I don't know that we need in different modalities, it's just they are able to extract and use it 17:41:34 Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA). 17:41:37 I will defer to the group, but a developer could still argue that they comply because, for example, a screen reader can use published API to get the text and font sizes, and from that can infer the locations of headings. I'd prefer to use phrasing that incorporates "published, supported mechanisms", "explicit" and "unambiguous". 17:43:00 Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA) 17:43:17 Eric: no problem adding more of the kind of language that Greg mentions. 17:44:24 The "published, supported" phrase was based on experience where developers would let assistive technology vendors use "undocumented, unsupported" API as a stop-gap measure, with the caveat that those mechanisms could be removed at any time, and customers inquiring could not get technical support because unsupported mechanisms were being used. 17:44:44 Jim: any objections? 17:45:23 Jeanne: do we want to change it to programmatically determined instead of programmatically available 17:45:24 Jan: keep available 17:45:26 Jim: I like available 17:46:26 Greg: the only thing missing from the latest definition was the unambiguous and/or not relying on heuristics, that kind of thing. So it would still allow one to pass if you exposed all the font information, therefore headers are implied but not explicit 17:46:55 Jeanne: I think we have it covered – we don't have infer anywhere in there 17:47:30 Greg: we are required to expose the headers, but if we don't expose the headers in any way other than – screen reader would have to recognize that larger font is headers – does that pass 17:47:57 Jeanne: do you have an idea of what we could use to close that down? 17:48:24 Jeanne: we wouldn't be able to pass that as an implementation 17:48:49 Jeanne: I can add a sentence to the intent 17:49:22 Greg: if you put something based on that paragraph for my email into the intent 17:49:24 action: jeanne to add a definition of programmatically available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user 17:49:24 agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA) 17:49:24 Created ACTION-841 - Add a definition of programmatically available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user [on Jeanne F Spellman - 17:49:25 ... due 2013-07-04]. 17:50:06 action: jeanne to add to the definition "... something is truly programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the information does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and officially supported by the developers of 17:50:06 the software being evaluated." 17:50:06 Created ACTION-842 - Add to the definition "... something is truly programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the information does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and officially supported by the developers of [on Jeanne F Spellman 17:50:07 ... - due 2013-07-04]. 17:50:25 zakim, close item 2 17:50:25 agendum 2, Proposed "programmatically available" definition, closed 17:50:26 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:50:26 3. Crowd source implementation - moving forward [from allanj] 17:51:35 Eric: one quick comment – maybe take out the word truly 17:51:36 Jeanne: I agree 17:51:44 zakim, open item 3 17:51:44 agendum 3. "Crowd source implementation - moving forward" taken up [from allanj] 17:53:11 Jeanne: temporarily on hold will I get the intellectual property issues – if people are not on a group and are contributing the rights are ambiguous. Have to make sure people are contributing everything royalty-free – just need to figure out the procedure for people to contribute their going to have to sign something that says I'm not going to try to copyright this work. I'm giving my work... 17:53:12 ...to the W3C. So we can move forward on that one once I get that straightened out. 17:53:27 Jeanne: people liked it 17:53:40 zakim, close item 3 17:53:40 agendum 3, Crowd source implementation - moving forward, closed 17:53:41 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:53:41 4. We have Comments!! Dealing with them [from allanj] 17:53:42 Jim: once we get that straightened out we will forward and get people to contribute implementations if they find them 17:53:51 zakim, open item 4 17:53:51 agendum 4. "We have Comments!! Dealing with them" taken up [from allanj] 17:54:17 http://w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html 17:54:35 Jim: last count there were 114 – more I haven't put in yet 17:56:02 Jim: explaining comment syntax 17:57:12 Greg: one JR: that's missing its number 17:57:22 Kelly: this is very useful and great 17:58:03 Greg: 1.5.1 that's missing its number 17:58:05 Jan: when it's missing its number just give it the next number 17:58:32 Greg: only needed if we need to file a response and extract information into its own format 17:58:33 Greg: a bunch of on the don't have the : 17:59:11 Jan: in the responses column, generally paste in there is some kind of highlighting when there is a proposal and then when it's approved by the group 17:59:12 @@approved with green highlighting or something just to make it easier to scan the whole list 18:00:00 Jim: start processing these the week after the Fourth of July or wait for you and Kim to thrash through the editorial ones? 18:00:01 Jeanne: we should definitely get started 18:00:26 Jim: meeting for next week canceled because it's on the Fourth of July 18:00:53 Eric needs to sign off 18:01:06 Jeanne: I can do a survey for some of them that are not editorial for next week, that will get us ahead for the following week. I think a lot of these we can do with just voting the surveys maybe without a lot of discussion 18:01:50 Jim: any other comments, thoughts, suggestions on comments? 18:01:58 zakim, close item 4 18:01:58 agendum 4, We have Comments!! Dealing with them, closed 18:01:59 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 18:01:59 5. writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address comments for specific SCs [from allanj] 18:02:09 zakim, open item 5 18:02:09 agendum 5. "writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address comments for specific SCs" taken up [from allanj] 18:02:53 Jim: we need to continue writing tests 18:03:54 Jan: anything useful we can borrow for keeping track from ATAG since you are a step ahead of us? 18:04:17 Jan: I use a lot of @@'s, red, green, yellow 18:04:41 Jan: @@approved etc. 18:05:08 Jim: Jan you had written a test on 2.11.2, Greg wrote back 18:05:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0115.html 18:07:05 Jan: answering Greg questions – yes doesn't have to be W3 formats, can be web formats – flash, PDF. So it comes down to what has the evaluator set out to do. When they set out to do an evaluation that actually specify the included technology. The thing might also render plaintext, Word files. Whatever's in scope 18:07:55 Jan: answering what does contained within the area mean – really are just areas of the screen, but it's not the most watertight definition 18:08:09 Greg: would they were or would they not be – I couldn't figure it out from the test 18:08:52 Jan: would what? 18:08:54 Greg: would a script which modifies only a region – the HTML is not contained to that area, but its effect is contained so therefore does it count as executable content which would normally be contained to that area 18:09:07 Jan: this is pointing to a hole in the SC really 18:09:30 Jan: I'm good to start with the types of elements that are limits to those areas, of course those may be generated on-the-fly by a script though 18:09:44 Jim: I'm concerned about this whole, is this something we need to patch in the SC or is it an edge case hole, or what 18:10:12 Greg: I think it is something which would need to be not ambiguous 18:10:13 Kelly, Jan agree 18:10:54 Jim: this is talking about Java scripting 18:11:15 Greg: it seems like it would need to be clarified in something normative, either in the SC or a note, not just implementing 18:11:43 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: 18:11:44 The user can render a placeholder instead of executable content that would normally be contained within an on-screen area (e.g. Applet, Flash), until explicit user request to execute. (Level A) 18:11:46 2.11.3 Execution Toggle: 18:11:47 The user can turn on/off the execution of executable content that would not normally be contained within a particular area (e.g. Javascript). (Level A) 18:12:16 Greg: better phrase for contained within a particular area? 18:12:56 Intent of Success Criterion 2.11.2: 18:12:58 Documents that do things automatically when loaded can delay, distract, or interfere with user's ability to continue with a task. Replacing executable content like embedded objects, applets and media with a placeholder tells the user what has been blocked and provides a mechanism (e.g. a play button) for unblocking when the user is ready. 18:12:59 Note: A placeholder should take up the same space as the object it is replacing, so that the presentation doesn't need to be reflowed when the execution is started. However, people using mobile devices or screen enlargers, or those who have difficulty with scroll commands may benefit from having the option of a smaller placholder. 18:13:45 Greg: you might have an applet which traps focus like flash or it might fear that it would display content that would trigger an epileptic seizure or start to make sound or whatever. So you want to be able to postpone the execution of it until you decide what do you really want to do it or not. 18:13:57 Greg: the other one is you can have a placeholder in the document 18:14:22 Jan: why not change the SC to be before launching put a placeholder there and have the user have to 18:14:42 Jim: instead of executable content we would say a plug-in, separate from JavaScript 18:15:00 Jan: may be more easily testable way to break the two up 18:15:47 Greg: sounds promising. In some cases a video is rendered by a nested user agent, in some cases rendered natively. Unless the placeholder says the user wouldn't know the difference. It wouldn't apply to the latter case – is that handled by some other SC? 18:15:59 Jan: yes, there's a video SC. 18:17:53 Eric has returned 18:18:01 Kim: this is a case where you would one test for several SC's? 18:18:27 Jeanne: problems with that 18:18:29 Jan: later on you could write another layers that combines them 18:20:01 Jim: summary says it nicely 18:20:10 Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html 18:20:55 Action JR: Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html 18:20:55 Created ACTION-843 - Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html [on Jan Richards - due 2013-07-04]. 18:22:45 action: Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. 18:22:45 Error finding 'Change'. You can review and register nicknames at . 18:23:04 action: jeanne to Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. 18:23:04 Created ACTION-844 - Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-07-04]. 18:23:31 zakim, agenda? 18:23:31 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 18:23:32 5. writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address comments for specific SCs [from allanj] 18:23:47 Greg: the no script extension for Firefox where you turn off a script on a play-by-play basis is much more useful than doing it globally 18:25:23 Greg: JavaScript is what 2.11.3 is there for – Media 18:25:24 Jim: media is 2.11.1 18:25:50 Greg: the word media in 2.11.3 means they are overlapping? 18:26:02 http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#gl-speech-config 18:26:21 Greg: looking at June 7 edition 18:26:48 Greg: difference between the June 7 editor's draft and the version used for the comments document – which is the current one? 18:27:23 Greg: When I built the spreadsheet use the latest published draft 18:27:25 Jeanne: because that's what people commented on 18:27:44 This is the version from the 7 June editor's draft: 2.11.3 Execution Toggle: The user can turn on/off the execution of dynamic or executable content (e.g. Javascript, canvas, media). (Level A) 18:28:02 Kelly: as we are evaluating a comment we should check that against the latest editor's draft 18:28:15 This is the version from the latest published draft and comments document: 18:28:17 2.11.3 Execution Toggle: The user can turn on/off the execution of executable content that would not normally be contained within a particular area (e.g. Javascript). (Level A) 18:28:52 Greg: the differences in the parenthetical list of examples – we took out canvas and media, which would obsolete my comment 18:30:13 -Kim_Patch 18:30:46 Actually we *added* "canvas, media" to the parenthetical list of examples since the last public draft. 18:31:01 rrsagent, make minutes 18:31:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:31:02 -Jan 18:31:15 -Eric 18:32:02 zakim, who is here? 18:32:02 On the phone I see Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Kelly, Greg_Lowney 18:32:03 On IRC I see allanj, jeanne, Eric_Hansen, KimPatch, Greg, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot 18:32:31 zakim, please part 18:32:31 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jeanne, +1.425.883.aaaa, Jan, +1.609.734.aabb, Jim_Allan, Eric, Kim_Patch, Greg_Lowney, Kelly 18:32:31 Zakim has left #ua 18:32:40 rrsagent, make minutes 18:32:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:36:40 rrsagent, please part 18:36:40 I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-actions.rdf : 18:36:40 ACTION: Jeanne to add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available, then the user can change the language. (AA) and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html [1] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T17-27-53 18:36:40 ACTION: jeanne to add a definition of programmatically available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user [2] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T17-49-24 18:36:40 ACTION: jeanne to add to the definition "... something is truly programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the information does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and officially supported by the developers of [3] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T17-50-06 18:36:40 ACTION: JR to Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html [4] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T18-20-55 18:36:40 ACTION: Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. [5] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T18-22-45 18:36:40 ACTION: jeanne to Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. [6] 18:36:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc#T18-23-04