16:51:20 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:51:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/08/08-ua-irc 16:51:22 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:51:22 Zakim has joined #ua 16:51:24 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:51:24 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 16:51:25 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:51:25 Date: 08 August 2013 16:51:32 rrsagent, set logs public 16:52:14 regrets: Jan 16:56:07 Agenda+ JR51 - decide A or AA 16:56:27 Agenda+ UAAG2: Clarifying obscuration 16:56:52 Agenda+ Kim - Modality Independent Controls 16:57:04 agenda+ Survey from 4 July start on question 5 - JR10 16:58:45 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 16:58:51 +Jeanne 16:59:49 +Jim_Allan 17:01:15 Greg has joined #ua 17:01:19 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:01:36 +Kim_Patch 17:01:54 agenda+ F2F update 17:02:05 +Greg_Lowney 17:03:22 regrets+ Eric 17:04:06 agenda? 17:05:15 zakim, open item 5 17:05:15 agendum 5. "F2F update" taken up [from allanj] 17:05:40 scribe: allanj 17:06:16 js: f2f is confirmed. send jeanne your preferred flights 17:06:35 js: I will book flights 17:07:29 zakim, close item 5 17:07:29 agendum 5, F2F update, closed 17:07:30 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:07:30 1. JR51 - decide A or AA [from allanj] 17:07:44 zakim, open item 1 17:07:44 agendum 1. "JR51 - decide A or AA" taken up [from allanj] 17:08:36 1.5.1 Global Volume: The user can independently adjust the volume of all audio tracks, relative to the global volume level set through operating environment mechanisms. (Level A) 17:10:35 gl: there were platform issues. on IOS there is no distinction between audio tracks (it is a convention). 17:11:08 ... on other platforms, Windows (where it is not a convention) should it be a requirement or not. 17:12:28 -Jeanne 17:12:36 js: platform issues/conventions should be covered by conformance statement. 17:12:57 +Jeanne 17:13:00 ... this is tricky to do, could be happy with AA 17:13:13 kim, greg, jim +1 17:13:40 Resolved: 1.5.1 is changed to AA. 17:14:06 gl: Add example of iOS in IER 17:14:15 ... or as a note 17:14:51 js: put in IER, so not normative. 17:15:15 GL: If a platform convention does not support multiple audio tracks 17:17:02 ... multiple audio tracks is not what I was proposing. I was looking at my earlier proposal 17:17:23 In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0015.html I said "I think it's fine to reduce the priority of the current 1.5.1, but the title should be changed to something more appropriate such as "Volume of individual tracks" or "Track volume."" 17:17:58 I also said: 17:17:59 Because we'd no longer have any Level A SC about adjusting volume, I also suggest renaming it to 1.5.2 and inserting a new SC, "1.5.1 Volume Control: The user can adjust the volume of all audio played, relative to the global volume level set through *operating environment* mechanisms. (Level A)" I think it's quite reasonable for any media player to provide at minimum one volume... 17:18:01 ...control for the media it's playing, and so widely implemented as to be expected by users, and entirely necessary for users who need to adjust their media volume without affecting the volume of their synthesized speech, etc. 17:18:13 JS: Audio Track Volume would be a better handle, I think 17:18:41 But *that's* the one where it was pointed out that iOS has the convention of not using separate per-app volume settings. 17:19:20 +1 to changing the handle to Audio Track Volume 17:19:44 +1 changing the handle 17:19:45 GL: We lost the SC on the Global Volume seetting. 17:19:59 s/seetting/setting 17:20:10 kford has joined #ua 17:21:00 note Action 850 on kelly to write a new SC is still open 17:21:27 GL: That was when it was pointed out that the problem with iOS is that they don't have a default volume, that there are 4 different volume settings which have to be addressed individually. 17:21:38 +[Microsoft] 17:21:45 zakim, microsoft is kford 17:21:45 +kford; got it 17:22:53 kelly will have 850 on Monday. 17:24:13 zakim, close item 1 17:24:13 agendum 1, JR51 - decide A or AA, closed 17:24:14 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:24:14 2. UAAG2: Clarifying obscuration [from allanj] 17:25:03 zakim, open item 2 17:25:03 agendum 2. "UAAG2: Clarifying obscuration" taken up [from allanj] 17:25:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0025.html 17:26:55 PROPOSAL 1: 17:26:57 1.1.4 Display of Alternative Content for Time-Based Media: For recognized on-screen alternative content for time-based media (e.g. 17:26:58 captions, sign language video), the following are all true: (Level AA) 17:27:00 (a) Text configurable: The user can configure recognized text within alternative content for time-based media (e.g. captions) in conformance with 1.4.1, 17:27:01 (b) Alternatives not obscured: Alternative content for time-based media is not obscured by the primary time-based media, 17:27:03 [ed. Maybe obvious, but added for completeness - transparency is not an option] 17:27:04 (c) Controls not obscured: Alternative content for time-based media do not obscure recognized controls for the primary time-based media, and 17:27:06 [ed. transparency is not an option] 17:27:07 (d) Primary media not fully obscured: Alternative content for time-based media do not fully obscure the primary time-based media. 17:27:09 [ed. This is where transparency is allowed...then 1.1.6 requires a non-overlapping option] 17:27:16 gl: 4 issues 17:27:24 Re the new sentence“Primary media not fully obscured: Alternative content for time-based media do not fully obscure the primary time-based media”, the term “fully obscure” seems to be saying that it can block 1/2, or 2/3 of the primary time-based media, as long as it doesn’t block 100% of it. That doesn’t seem appropriate. 17:28:14 gl: item D written above 17:28:35 gl: he must mean overlayed by something opaque 17:28:53 ... can only tell because of the note. 17:29:10 ... needs to say it more explicitly. 17:30:26 ... as written it would be ok to cover 99% or less of the screen. 17:31:12 I think he means by (d) that "alternative content for time-based media does not overlap the primary time-based media if rendered with opaque backgrounds" 17:31:52 js: but folks with low vision need opaque background. 17:32:16 gl: "the use can have all of the following be true" their choice. 17:33:07 definition in document...Obscure: To render a visual element in the same screen space as a second visual element in a way that prevents the second visual element from being visually perceived. Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available it is more effective... 17:33:08 ...not to overlap visual elements that are both of interest to the user. 17:33:51 kp: confused. wording issues. 17:34:20 gl: push back to jr and mention problems with D. 17:34:53 table this until Jan returns 17:35:08 zakim, close this item 17:35:08 agendum 2 closed 17:35:09 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:35:09 3. Kim - Modality Independent Controls [from allanj] 17:35:32 topic: add handles to 1.1.6 17:36:12 gl: what is the convention for the rest of the document? 17:36:36 ... today we are inconsistent. some with handles, some with out 17:37:08 1.7.2 bullets has no bolded text 17:37:29 1.4.1 bullets all bold except parenthetical 17:37:32 1.7.2 bullets have no bolded text; 1.4.1 bullets have all the text bolded except parentheticals; 1.1.4 bullets have bolded titles ending in colons. 17:38:30 Resolved: fixing bullet handles and capitalization issues is for the editors. 17:38:41 zagnea? 17:38:51 agenda? 17:39:48 zakim: open item 3 17:40:02 Greg comment - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0014.html 17:40:03 Kim Proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011OctDec/0108.html 17:40:30 related to comment 27 17:41:55 kp: explains reason for section. 17:42:34 gl: concern about title. moved to a different section? 17:43:08 kp: was principle, then control. what are the choices. 17:44:06 current wording: 17:44:11 Modality Independent Controls 17:44:12 Users interacting with a web browser may do so using one or more input methods including keyboard, mouse, speech, touch, and gesture. It's critical that each user be free to use whatever input method or combination of methods works best for a given situation. Therefore every potential user task must be accessible via modality independent controls that any input technology can access. 17:44:14 For instance, if a user can't use or doesn't have access to a mouse, but can use and access a keyboard, the keyboard can call a modality independent control to activate an OnMouseOver event. See Independent User Interface: Events for additional information on APIs and techniques for modality independent controls. 17:46:08 Some people felt the "Overview" or "Summary" should not have content that isn't summarizing something later in the document. 17:46:15 js: perhaps make it a note at beginning of Principle 2 17:46:20 (Personally I'm neutral on that.) 17:46:56 kp: add a sentence, 'when we say keyboard accessible, we mean modality independent" 17:47:37 this would work for me. 17:48:26 Kim and Jim feel this note should be in the main doc, not just in the Implementing doc. 17:48:28 Resolved: move Modality Independent Controls to Guidleine 2, make it a Note. add a sentence explaining it a bit more. fix "must" 17:48:58 s/Guidleine/Guideline 17:50:09 discussing RFC2119 17:50:57 perhaps have a statement at the top that we are NOT using RFC2119. Editors choice. 17:52:21 Action: Jeanne to move Modality Independent Controls to immediatly after Principal 2, make it a Note. add a sentence explaining it a bit more. fix "must" 17:52:21 Created ACTION-860 - Move Modality Independent Controls to immediatly after Principal 2, make it a Note. add a sentence explaining it a bit more. fix "must" [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-15]. 17:53:55 Action: Jeanne to add a note to the document about NOT following RFC 2119 17:53:55 Created ACTION-861 - Add a note to the document about NOT following RFC 2119 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-15]. 17:54:10 zakim close this item 17:54:17 zakim, close this item 17:54:17 I do not know what agendum had been taken up, allanj 17:54:28 zakim, close item 3 17:54:28 agendum 3, Kim - Modality Independent Controls, closed 17:54:29 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:54:29 4. Survey from 4 July start on question 5 - JR10 [from allanj] 17:54:46 zakim, open item 4 17:54:46 agendum 4. "Survey from 4 July start on question 5 - JR10" taken up [from allanj] 17:55:09 topic: quetion 5 17:55:11 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results#xq7 17:57:26 Jim suggests keeping the old wording with AA. 17:58:08 gl: prefers old wording 17:58:28 I agree that I prefer the original wording, but are there implementations that comply? 17:59:29 Jim thinks there's an extension for Firefox that makes all iframes resizable; it cannot be done using style sheets. 18:00:15 kf: did a search, there seems to be extensions, techniques for doing this. 18:00:59 gl: ok with original wording change to AA 18:01:23 ja: any objections to original wording for 1.8.3 and change to AA 18:01:28 none heard. 18:01:54 Action: jeanne to update document 1.8.3 is now AA 18:01:54 Created ACTION-862 - Update document 1.8.3 is now AA [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-15]. 18:02:16 topic: JR11 on 1.8.6 18:02:23 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results#xq8 18:05:35 ja: any objections to using "top level viewports" 18:05:39 none heard. 18:06:00 gl: editing on plurals 18:06:17 I said: However, there is a problem with the "Zoom out" portion. It consists of two clauses that could conflict, and it's not clear how such conflicts would be resolved. For example, what if reducing to 10% is not enough to let the content fit within the height or width of the viewport,then what? Is it saying that zoom has to go to 10% or the amount necessary to make the content fit,... 18:06:18 ...whichever size is smaller? Perhaps rephrase as "Zoom out: to 10% or less of the default size, or enough to let the content fit within the height or width of its viewport, whichever size is smaller." 18:08:50 We cannot split an SC into two priority levels; I assume his trailing AA is a copy/paste error. 18:10:37 Jim: WCAG only requires 200%. 18:10:39 Greg: does any UA that has zoom not go to 500%? 18:11:45 Resolved: New wording for 1.8.6 18:12:36 Resolved: 1.8.6: Zoom: The user can rescale content within top level graphical viewports as follows: (Level A) 18:12:38 Zoom in: to 500% or more of the default size; and 18:12:39 Zoom out: to 10% or less of the default size, or enough to let the content fit within the height or width of its viewport, whichever size is smaller." 18:12:41 pending response from Jan about A or AA 18:13:06 topic: JR13 on 1.8.12 18:13:13 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/results#xq9 18:16:44 discussion 18:17:12 Does anyone not agree with my objection to the rewrite? "What does "when it can be reflowed" mean? It would be extremely inconvenient if such reflowing could not be made automatic (e.g. if the user had to perform an explicit action on each element they want to reflow, or on each page after it is rendered). Other wording might be more acceptable." 18:17:30 kp: like the original wording. 18:18:33 smithing attempts 18:18:58 "The user can have content automatically reflow when its graphical viewport is resized, so that that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport." 18:19:48 "The user can have content automatically reflow when the scaling of its graphical viewport is changed, so that that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport." 18:20:10 "The user can have content automatically reflow when the scaling of its graphical viewport is changed, so that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport." 18:21:02 ja: authoring practice of responsive web design, would be nice if UAs would repair 18:21:37 kf: UA could do it, will they???? if UAs say we won't do this, then we remove it 18:21:57 ... we other SCs like this. 18:22:38 The user can specify that when reflowable content in a graphical viewport rescales, it reflows so that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport. 18:23:40 discussion of 'can have' vs 'specify' 18:26:05 Some SC say "can have", some "can specify", etc. To my mind the "can have" is generally better because "can specify" *could* be interpreted as requiring the user have a choice (that is, they have to be able to turn it off), whereas "can have" more correctly implies that it can be optional or always on, but just can't be always off. 18:31:18 gl: wants some statement for the entire document - conventions used in document - user can specify means foo, user can choose means foo. 18:32:10 Action: jeanne to modify 1.8.12 to be The user can specify that when reflowable content in a graphical viewport rescales, it reflows so that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport. 18:32:11 Created ACTION-863 - Modify 1.8.12 to be The user can specify that when reflowable content in a graphical viewport rescales, it reflows so that one dimension of the content fits within the height or width of the viewport. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-15]. 18:32:24 rrsagent, make minutes 18:32:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/08-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:34:46 -kford 18:34:58 -Jeanne 18:34:59 -Greg_Lowney 18:35:05 -Jim_Allan 18:35:07 -Kim_Patch 18:35:07 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended 18:35:07 Attendees were Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, Greg_Lowney, kford 18:35:20 zakim, please part 18:35:20 Zakim has left #ua 18:35:29 rrsagent, make minutes 18:35:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/08-ua-minutes.html allanj 20:00:08 jeanne has left #ua