16:59:07 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:59:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc 16:59:09 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:09 Zakim has joined #ua 16:59:11 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:59:11 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:59:12 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:59:12 Date: 01 May 2014 16:59:18 rrsagent, set logs public 16:59:32 chair: jimAllan, KellyFord 16:59:44 rrsagent, make minutes 16:59:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 17:01:35 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 17:01:40 jeanne has joined #ua 17:01:42 +[Microsoft] 17:01:58 Greg has joined #ua 17:02:00 kford has joined #ua 17:02:06 +Eric 17:02:08 Jan has joined #ua 17:02:12 agenda+ Jan - Action 973 - comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html 17:02:14 agenda+ MS04 2.3.4 Present Direct Commands in User Interface 17:02:17 zakim, code? 17:02:17 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:02:31 +Jeanne 17:02:38 Main Comment Gateway - http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ 17:02:48 Latest editor's draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/ 17:02:57 Eric has joined #ua 17:03:06 +Greg_Lowney 17:03:22 +[IPcaller] 17:03:58 +Jim_Allan 17:04:06 +Kim_Patch 17:04:06 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:04:18 zakim, IPcaller is really Jan 17:04:18 +Jan; got it 17:05:00 agenda+ WebTV 17:05:15 +EricP 17:05:33 scribe: allanj 17:05:47 agenda? 17:07:13 open item 3 17:07:26 Topic: WebTV 17:10:27 ww: visiting scholar at MIT, working on WebTV 17:10:47 ... second round of use cases, shaping requirements of TV 17:11:28 ... considering a11y in WebTV, have some use cases 17:11:55 ja: need more use cases? 17:12:11 ww: yes, need more to help set technical requirements. 17:13:16 js: correction. have no a11y use cases, need some. 17:13:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases 17:13:32 1.1.1 has an example 17:13:45 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/New_Ideas 17:14:11 1.1.6 has an example of positioning captions 17:14:15 ja: above line for format for use cases 17:14:43 2.4.5 - alternative content search 17:15:20 ja: timeline for use cases? 17:15:31 ww: end of may deadline 17:16:46 ja: use cases - how user gets speech feedback, or change font size 17:17:55 kf: WebTV, on desktop there is an AT layer and the browser. not so on TV 17:18:24 gl: a closed system, no addition of external AT 17:18:38 SC 1.1.1 Alternative content - http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_111-e 17:19:15 kf: windows media center. works with nvda, mostly. can read, but not details...spell words 17:19:56 1.1.6 Resize and reposition of media alternatives http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_116-e 17:20:03 jr: if no 3rd party, how to add scanning keyboard to a closed system if none is built in 17:20:16 kf: this may be beyond our scope 17:20:42 js: been dropping things in IRC of things that must be looked at 17:21:04 gl: we don't have TV examples 17:21:33 js: we have other projects that are more pressing 17:22:38 gl: WebTV should be able to generate use cases from UAAG, not us generating them 17:22:47 js: possible? 17:23:41 ww: will suggest to webtv to review UAAG to generate use cases 17:24:12 ... don't think they will do it. 17:26:18 ja: UAWG will not pursue this as a group, however individuals can submit their own use cases if they choose to Jeanne 17:26:53 js: can submit the 4 we have discussed. 17:27:42 js: has the webtv group looked at an underlying a11y api for basic OS a11y features 17:28:17 ww: looked at timed text, tuner control 17:28:41 js: not others - font size, captions placement, etc. 17:29:31 js: will followup off line 17:29:52 zakim: close item 3 17:30:02 zakim, close item 3 17:30:02 agendum 3, WebTV, closed 17:30:04 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:30:04 1. Jan - Action 973 - comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html [from allanj] 17:30:25 zakim, open item 1 17:30:25 agendum 1. "Jan - Action 973 - comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html" taken up [from allanj] 17:31:19 http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ 17:31:57 jr: orig. comment - remove web based user agent 17:32:35 jr: proposed response 17:33:05 In order to clarify the relationship between UAAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 (and ATAG 2.0) UAWG has added 2 new sections to the Guidelines document Introduction: 17:33:07 -Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and 17:33:08 -Relationship to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 17:33:10 For the following reasons, UAWG continues to believe that keeping web-based user agents in the scope of UAAG is reasonable: 17:33:11 - from the perspective of users needing accessibility features (e.g. zoom, media navigation, etc.) it is not always clear whether a user agent is web-based or native, especially as browsers and operating systems converge. 17:33:13 - UAAG does allow web-based user agents to depend on the base (native) user agent in order to meet UAAG success criteria, just as non-web-based user agents can rely on operating system features (e.g. to programmatically communicate with assistive technology) 17:33:14 - the web-based user agent may be best placed to provide UAAG conformant functionality. For example a web-based video player may only be serving small portions of a video to the base browser's video player, so the base browser would not be able to provide effective navigation of the video. Similarly, a web-based user agent can zoom its content and keep its own user interface the same size,... 17:33:16 ...saving screen real estate, while the base browser's zoom function may zoom the web-based browser's user interface, leaving less space for the content. 17:33:17 Instead of de-scoping web-based user agents, UAWG will identify exemptions from specific success criteria where necessary (e.g. due to technical limitations). 17:34:23 js: like it 17:34:53 I like this, was taking a minute to process all. 17:35:08 gl: wording is technical but makes the right statement 17:35:19 ... would add reasonable and important. 17:35:21 To "UAWG continues to believe that keeping web-based user agents in the scope of UAAG is reasonable" add "and important". 17:35:28 kp: +1 17:35:49 -wuwei 17:36:04 ja: this does task us with iding the exemptions 17:36:35 gl: we have been doing this 17:37:05 ja: change last line to " UAWG will continue to identify exemptions from specific success criteria where necessary (e.g. due to technical limitations).' 17:37:42 jr: this is a moving target, as UAs push more to other components/objects in content 17:37:56 ... we will continue to update exceptions 17:38:32 close action-973 17:38:32 Closed action-973. 17:40:40 gl: in the bullet items. are they in the document 17:40:57 jr: perhaps change the def of 'web-based UA' 17:41:24 gl: or in the introduction 17:41:36 js: better in the introduction 17:41:58 eh: should it be both. 17:42:20 Action JR: Work this text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html into a section in the introduction. 17:42:20 Created ACTION-974 - Work this text http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2014aprjun/0014.html into a section in the introduction. [on Jan Richards - due 2014-05-08]. 17:42:26 jr: don't think it changes the def. it has been stable for a long time 17:43:16 Topic: MS04 Delineate between content and browser -- 2.3.4 Present Direct Commands in User Interface: , 2.2.1 Sequential Navigation Between Elements: 17:43:48 ms04: There should be clear separation of the guidelines that are applicable to the browser itself (such as 3.2.2 or 2.3.4) and how it handles web content (such as 3.2.3 and 2.2.1). In theory, success criteria applicable to handling of web content should always contain the term "rendered content" to make this distinction clear. But this is, unfortunately, not done with any consistency. For... 17:43:49 ...example, guideline 2.2 are clearly applicable to browser treatment of rendered content, but the term never appears in its four success criteria. This makes it difficult for the audience to interpret the intention of the guidelines. 17:46:39 wwu has joined #UA 17:48:31 Where there are specific success criteria that could be clarified, please point them out, and we can make an effort to clarify them. Your example is not quite accurate, as while 2.2.1 does not explicitly say it applies to rendered content, it does say it applies to recognized enabled elements, which are defined as being a subset of rendered content. We have tried to balance out being repetitive 17:48:31 with being clear, and expected that readers would quickly pick up on frequently used terms such as "elements", just as with "content"; without those the document would not be meaningful 17:49:52 eh: is there an antonym for 'rendered content' 17:49:59 ja: machine readable 17:50:16 js: user interface 17:51:52 jr: ATAG split into 2 halves, UAWG discussed and rejected splitting long ago 17:52:20 eh: do we use user agent user interface vs rendered content 17:52:41 js: we do this 17:52:57 jr: UAAG 10 had something like that. 17:53:27 js: could add classes to help sort the document, rendering vs UAUI 17:53:42 ... would be helpful in implementations 17:54:05 JR: UAAG 1.0 used this...http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#content-or-ua .... but not very consistently. 17:54:06 ja: we already use RDC and UAUI, 17:55:57 gl: we say SC apply to both, unless we say otherwise. 17:56:12 eh: where is that located? 17:56:56 UAUI not mentioned until 2.1.6 17:57:25 eh: should it be called out in an applicability note? 17:57:42 jr: what is default assumption? 17:58:07 gl: assumption is SC apply to both, unless we say otherwise 17:58:34 eh: written where? or just our thoughts 17:59:15 js: not sure, a while back we went through the doc to flag UAUI and RC 17:59:31 jr: only a few actually overlap 18:00:33 action: jallan to review document for explicit use of UAUI or RC and report back 18:00:33 Created ACTION-975 - Review document for explicit use of uaui or rc and report back [on Jim Allan - due 2014-05-08]. 18:02:34 We should improve the definition of "recognize", starting with a concise definition before getting into background information. 18:04:15 JR: Just noticed "rendered content" just talks about author-supplied...I can imagine user agent injected content being relevant here as well 18:05:26 wuwei has joined #UA 18:05:37 ja: like what? 18:06:25 ja: like the injection of the mouseless browsing content injection of the numbers for links 18:07:02 eh: ... may include content injected by extensions etc. 18:07:23 eh: could have rendered content that the author never touched 18:07:42 jr: help content in chrome are html 18:08:37 gl: content as defined in w3 terms and presented to the user 18:09:12 s/as defined in w3 terms/is defined in a w3 format/ 18:09:16 action: jallan to review definition of Rendered content 18:09:16 Created ACTION-976 - Review definition of rendered content [on Jim Allan - due 2014-05-08]. 18:11:26 ja: what about SSL EV green box in address bar, is that RC 18:12:24 jr: sort of, more UA functionality, not necessarily RC 18:14:05 Topic: MS05: Examples in the implementation document do not make distinction of content, browser, assistive technologies, and OS (paritlal) 18:14:22 s/paritlal/partial 18:14:35 action: Greg to edit glossary entry for "recognize" to start with a concise definition 18:14:35 Created ACTION-977 - Edit glossary entry for "recognize" to start with a concise definition [on Greg Lowney - due 2014-05-08]. 18:14:39 seen http://www.w3.org/2014/01/23-ua-minutes.html#item03 18:16:20 Your criticism of the example for 2.2.1 is well taken. However, the Implementing document is not on the same timeline as the guidelines document itself, and is not submitted for last call, so if the former needs more work it is not automatically a reason to hold up the latter. 18:17:19 js: it is a fair point. and would be a major rewrite of all examples. 18:18:27 ja: a review of UAUI and RC should help 18:19:11 gl: need to be more explicit. write the example to say ... could be done by OS or UA or an AT 18:20:59 js: examples are not complex. an engineer should know what is a UA or OS function 18:21:04 We don't *need to*, but we certainly could, and doing so might make it easier to use for some UA developers and testers. 18:22:01 eh: UA and platform, allow us to say let the developer determine where a function should be handled 18:23:26 ... conformance, the developer says who does what. We have stated that. Its someone else's problem for determining this 18:23:52 ... should we be clear about including or excluding AT in the conformance claim 18:24:44 js: comment is only addressing implementation document - non-normative, not about the conformance claim - normative 18:24:56 eh: is AT part of the conformance claim. 18:25:42 gl: including AT is part of conformance 18:25:51 ja: what is our response? 18:26:53 ja: UAAG is non-prescriptive to have success on an SC 18:28:07 js: UAWG is trying to make it easier on developers has to how they want to meet requirements of an SC. AT is a moving target and is rapidly changing. 18:29:50 eh: reviewed conformance wrt AT. no AT mentioned in definition of platform, and not much mentioned in conformance 18:30:30 ... is document explicit about AT place - inside or outside of the UA 18:30:41 UAWG did wrote the examples to be illustrative of common uses by people with disabilities. In order to avoid being excessively prescriptive to the browser, we did not make divisions between platform, OS, browser and assistive technologies, knowing that the field is evolving rapidly, and the accessibility feature that is on the browser on one device, may be on the OS on another. 18:32:36 ja: most users don't use AT, so UA need to do as much as possible. 18:33:06 +1 to jeanne proposal 18:33:10 kp: +1 18:33:18 jr: =1 18:33:25 jr: +1 18:34:48 Assistive technologies may or may not be included in the user agent, the OS or the platform, so we did not try to define where it would be located. 18:34:52 eh: AT is external to UA, peoples def of AT is very broad. 18:36:42 If we elsewhere clearly distinguish between UA and AT, then saying "AT may or may not be included in the user agent" seems to contradict that. 18:37:40 -Jan 18:38:50 ja: we are talking about what is needed to conform to the SC. AT are not part of UA but they can be included in a conformance claim 18:39:26 rrsagent, make minutes 18:39:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:40:06 eh: conformance need, part h list AT as needed to meet SC as part of the platform? 18:40:41 I have to agree with the original criticism in MS05 about the example for 1.2.2 "Maria uses a screen reader. When a table lacks marked up header rows, the user agent gives her the option to have the first row treated as the table header row." That *is* vague as to what the user agent is doing. We could say something like "When a table lacks marked up header rows, the user agent provides an... 18:40:42 ...option or command that changes the td (table data) elements in the first table row to be th (table headings)." This seems like something that AT would handle, rather than recommending the UA provide this feature, but this is illustrates how the example (and others) could be made clearer. 18:41:07 js: be careful, navigate by heading should not be passed on to the AT should be native. 18:44:32 ja: jeanne will write a proposal for our response 18:45:07 ... next week we will review what we want to do about making the examples more clearly reflective of UA abilities in meeting SCs 18:45:50 rrsagent, make minutes 18:45:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:45:54 action: jeanne to write a proposal for the response to MS05 18:45:54 Created ACTION-978 - Write a proposal for the response to ms05 [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-05-08]. 18:47:17 rrsagent, make minutes 18:47:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:49:01 zakim, please part 18:49:01 leaving. As of this point the attendees were [Microsoft], Eric, Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, Jan, wuwei 18:49:01 Zakim has left #ua 18:49:12 rrsagent, make minutes 18:49:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:52:35 new browser - Aviator https://www.whitehatsec.com/aviator/ 18:54:32 kp: drawing program with novel undo. Concepts...keeps track of all changes, and remove specific element in the chain of changes. would be great for UA or platform configuration 18:54:41 rrsagent, make minutes 18:54:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:55:07 rrsagent, please part 18:55:07 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-actions.rdf : 18:55:07 ACTION: JR to Work this text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html into a section in the introduction. [1] 18:55:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc#T17-42-20 18:55:07 ACTION: jallan to review document for explicit use of UAUI or RC and report back [2] 18:55:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc#T18-00-33 18:55:07 ACTION: jallan to review definition of Rendered content [3] 18:55:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc#T18-09-16 18:55:07 ACTION: Greg to edit glossary entry for "recognize" to start with a concise definition [4] 18:55:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc#T18-14-35 18:55:07 ACTION: jeanne to write a proposal for the response to MS05 [5] 18:55:07 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc#T18-45-54