See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 10 April 2014
<kford> we left off at 2.3.3
<kford> comments document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2014/LCcomments.html
<kford> ---
<kford> Main Comment Gateway -
<kford> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/
<kford> TPAC is OCT 27-31 in Santa Clara.
<jeanne> We could request Monday - Tuesday
<kford> Group saying we would like to meet 10/27-28. Will explore funding.
<Greg> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2014/LCcomments.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JanMar/0046.html
<jeanne> Minutes from 13 March -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0000.html
<Greg> The latest draft wording on 13 March was:
<Greg> Jan's update: 2.3.1 Allow Direct Navigation to Enabled Elements: The user can move keyboard focus directly to any enabled elements in the rendered content. (Level AA)
EDIT 2.3.1 Allow Direct Navigation to Enabled Elements: The user can move keyboard focus directly to any enabled elements in the rendered content. (Level AA)
EDIT 2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled Elements: The user can perform an activation action on any enabled element in the rendered content. (Level A)
GL: Element->Elements: 2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled Elements: The user can perform an activation action on any enabled elements in the rendered content. (Level A)
<Greg> Actually I felt "element" should be singular in the SC (not title), as a command can't move focus to multiple elements at one time.
KP: But should move the focus as well
2.3.1 Allow Direct Navigation to Enabled Elements: The user can move keyboard focus directly to any enabled element in the rendered content. (Level A)
2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled Elements: The user can, in a single action, move keyboard focus to any enabled element in the rendered content and perform an activation action on that element. (Level AA)
2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled Elements: The user can, in a single action, move keyboard focus directly to any enabled element in the rendered content and perform an activation action on that element. (Level AA)
JR: Do people like wording (leaving aside level)?
KP: Yes
GL: Tiny bit of ambiguity, but good enough
<kford> I lost all my connectivity about 10 minutes ago.
<kford> are you still on the phone?
JR: We should wait for the chair....
<kford> Now when I dial in, thereis no answer
Yes we are all on the phone
<kford> I keep trying and have been for like 10 minutes
Now we've lost Kelly from IRC
Can I call you on Skype?
I'm calling you on Skype...but the call failed
Kelly, do you agree with the following wording:
2.3.1 Allow Direct Navigation to Enabled Elements: The user can move keyboard focus directly to any enabled element in the rendered content.
2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled Elements: The user can, in a single action, move keyboard focus directly to any enabled element in the rendered content and perform an activation action on that element.
KF: OK
... OK with new 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 wording
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to update document with new 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 wording above. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-963 - Update document with new 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 wording above. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-04-17].
KP: From speech point of view,
nav+activation is more important
... It would be more rare to do nav alone
JS: Classic example is screen
reader user trying to nav a list but it activates items as you
try to navigate the list
... I like AA for both
JR: I could live with that
KP: I can live with AA for both
GL: I can live with AA...but
making me think about lengthy doc navigation
... Could use structured nav?
GL Maybe page-down
JS: When deciding levels... we said A would be solved an absolute barrier, was easy to implement, helped many people
KF: OK with Level AA
Resolution: All agree on: 2.3.1
Allow Direct Navigation to Enabled Elements: The user can move
keyboard focus directly to any enabled element in the rendered
content. (Level AA)
... All agree on 2.3.3 Allow Direct Activation of Enabled
Elements: The user can, in a single action, move keyboard focus
directly to any enabled element in the rendered content and
perform an activation action on that element. (Level AA)
<kford> yes I'm fine with this
Resolution: When re-numbering, put 2.3.1 followed immediately by the 2.3.3
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to renumber in this order: 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-964 - Renumber in this order: 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.2 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-04-17].
JR: Only change is more general handle and added "content sections"
GL: Should we add recognized?
2.5.2 Provide Structural Navigation: The user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the recognized structure types are present: (Level AA) - By heading - By content sections - Within tables
2.5.2 Provide Structural Navigation: The user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the following structure types are recognized: (Level AA) - By heading - By content sections - Within tables
2.5.2 Provide Structural Navigation: The user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the structure types are recognized: (Level AA) - By heading - By content sections - Within tables
GL: Looks good
JR: +1
KP: Good
<jeanne> +1
JS: Good
KF: Fine
Resolution: All agree to: 2.5.2 Provide Structural Navigation: The user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the structure types are recognized: (Level AA) - By heading - By content sections - Within tables
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to update 2.5.2 with new wording: 2.5.2 Provide Structural Navigation: The user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the structure types are recognized: (Level AA) - By heading - By content sections - Within tables [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-965 - Update 2.5.2 with new wording: 2.5.2 provide structural navigation: the user agent provides at least the following types of structural navigation, where the structure types are recognized: (level aa) - by heading - by content sections - within tables [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-04-17].
2.5.3 Allow Elements to be Configured for Structural Navigation: The user can configure a set of important elements (including element type) for structured navigation and hierarchical/outline view. (Level AAA)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2014/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20140410/#sc_253
KF: I think lots of users would use this
KP: I go to lots of web pages
regularly
... People do same things over and over....and ineffecient
2.5.3 Allow Elements to be Configured for Structural Navigation: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
1.9.1 Outline View: Users can view a navigable outline of rendered content composed of labels for important elements, and can move focus efficiently to these elements in the main viewport. (Level AA)
- Note: The important elements depend on the web content technology, but may include headings, table captions, and content sections.
That was current wording...
1.9.1 Outline View: Users can view a navigable outline of the rendered content that allows focus to be moved to the corresponding element in the main viewport. (Level AA) - Note: The elements reflected in the outline view will depend on the web content technology and may include: headings, table captions, and content sections.
<Greg> Note: It is recommended that the user agent allow users to customize which elements are included in the outline view.
GL: Another approach would be to add a note to 1.9.1 saying it is recommended that users be able to customize which elements to include
2.5.3 Allow Elements to be Configured for Structural Navigation: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
GL: 1.91. and 2.5.3 etc. should point to this
2.5.3 Configurable Structural Navigation...
<Greg> "Configuring Structural Navigation and Views"?
<Greg> "Configure Structural Navigation and Outline View"?
2.5.3 Configuring Structural Navigation and Views: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
JR: KP, JS...handle?
2.5.3 Configure Elements for Structural Navigation and Views: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
2.5.3 Configure Navigation and Views: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
<Greg> My pref would be the shorter "2.5.3 Configure Structural Navigation and Views", but can live with it long.
2.5.3 Configure Structural Navigation and Views: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
JR: +1
KP: +1
<jeanne> +1 to Greg's
GL: +1
<Greg> GL +1
KF: +1
Resolution: All agree with: 2.5.3 Configure Structural Navigation and Views: The user can configure which elements are used for structural navigation and outline views. (Level AAA)
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to reword 2.5.3 Configure Structural Navigation and Views: [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-966 - Reword 2.5.3 configure structural navigation and views: [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-04-17].
JR: Agree to remove
KP: +1
GL: We will need to remove from summary of 1.9, 2.3
Resolution: All agree to remove "GLOSSARY: important elements" and mention of import elements from summaries (1.9 and 2.3)
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to remove definition of "important elements" and remove mention in the summaries of 1.9 and 2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-967 - Remove definition of "important elements" and remove mention in the summaries of 1.9 and 2.3 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-04-17].
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0004.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2014/LCcomments.html
JS: All of that "Important elements" stuff was related to comment MSO9
GL: Actually we ere on OP06
... An opera comment
... That was the last Opera comment
JR: So what's next?
JS: Maybe James
Craig....AP01
... The working group agrees that many items in UAAG 2.0 are
relatively easy to acheive with CSS and scripts bu the onus
should be on user agents developers rather than users in the
general public to implement these.
<jeanne_> UAWG agrees that many items in UAAG2 are relatively easy to achieve with user style sheets and user scripts, but the onus for developing the style sheets and scripts should be on user agent developers rather than users.
<Greg> I'm thinking that to claim compliance, the claimant needs to demonstrate compliance, which may be done with existing user style sheets and scripts. However, it is insufficient to claim that those could *in theory* be written, if none can be demonstrated.
<jeanne_> UAWG agrees that many items in UAAG2 are relatively easy to achieve with user style sheets and user scripts, but the onus for developing the style sheets and scripts should be on user agent developers rather than users. To claim compliance, there must be a solution for the non-expert, not a sample of what could be done.
<Greg> In order to claim compliance, the claimant must demonstrate that solutions, and any required additional components, are available to non-expert users. Enabling the creation of such solutions is not by itself sufficient.
<jeanne_> UAWG agrees that many items in UAAG2 are relatively easy to achieve with user style sheets and user scripts, but the onus for developing the style sheets and scripts should be on user agent developers rather than users. To claim compliance, there must be a practical solution for the non-expert user, not just a sample of what could be done.
<jeanne_> UAWG agrees that many items in UAAG2 are relatively easy to achieve with user style sheets and user scripts, but the onus for developing the style sheets and scripts should be on user agent developers rather than users. In order to claim compliance, the claimant must demonstrate that solutions, and any required additional components, are available to non-expert users. Enabling the creation of such solutions is not by itself sufficient.
Resolution: UAWG agrees that many
items in UAAG2 are relatively easy to achieve with user style
sheets and user scripts, but the onus for developing the style
sheets and scripts should be on user agent developers rather
than users. In order to claim compliance, the claimant must
demonstrate that solutions, and any required additional
components, are available to non-expert users.
Enabling...
... the creation of such solutions is not by itself
sufficient.
<jeanne> Next Week: Start with AP02
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/rrsgent, make minutes// Succeeded: s/KF/KP/ Succeeded: s/rrsagent, make minutes'// Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan WARNING: Dash separator lines found. If you intended them to mark the start of a new topic, you need the -dashTopics option. For example: <Philippe> --- <Philippe> Review of Action Items Default Present: Jeanne, kford, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Kelly Present: Jeanne kford Greg_Lowney Kim_Patch Kelly Regrets: Jim Eric Found Date: 10 Apr 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/04/10-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]