16:47:42 RRSAgent has joined #ua 16:47:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-irc 16:47:44 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:47:44 Zakim has joined #ua 16:47:46 Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG 16:47:46 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 16:47:47 Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16:47:47 Date: 29 May 2014 16:47:55 rrsagent, set logs public 16:48:01 rrsagent, make minuts 16:48:01 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minuts', allanj. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:48:06 rrsagent, make minutes 16:48:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 16:49:57 kford has joined #ua 16:50:51 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started 16:50:58 +[Microsoft] 16:55:04 +Jeanne 16:55:53 +Jim_Allan 16:58:44 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0046.html 16:59:14 regrets: Jan 16:59:16 WebTV use-cases - comment on-line, please 16:59:17 Agenda+ Microsoft Comment MS05-... 16:59:19 Agenda+ action items - take up if done. 16:59:20 981 jim - Create or modify an sc (1.7x) to allow for multiple user stylesheets 16:59:22 981 greg - Greg to write conformance/ introduction extension existence discover-ability and life span 16:59:23 979 jim - rewrite of 1.4 16:59:25 978 jeanne - write proposal for ms05 response 16:59:26 977 greg - glossary entry for 'recognize' 16:59:28 976 jim - def of rendered content 16:59:29 975 jim - use of uaui or rc in document 16:59:31 974 jan - work text into introduction 16:59:32 972 jeanne - smith cr05 response re: heading nav 16:59:50 KimPatch has joined #ua 17:00:25 +Kim_Patch 17:00:31 Greg has joined #ua 17:01:44 +Greg_Lowney 17:04:26 Jan has joined #ua 17:04:31 zakim, code? 17:04:31 the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 17:04:35 scribe: allanj 17:04:53 agenda? 17:05:01 +[IPcaller] 17:05:24 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:05:24 +Jan; got it 17:06:35 topic: WebTV use cases 17:07:56 have been merged with A11y TF responses and sent to WebTV 17:08:32 topic: action-980 17:08:42 ACTION-980 - Write conformance/ introduction extension existence discover-ability and life span [on Greg Lowney - due 2014-05-29] 17:09:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0049.html 17:10:46 jr: should put 6.b as the first item in the list 17:11:16 jr: what does 'maintained' mean 17:11:43 gl: subsidized, published 17:12:15 js: UA can't make an update and break an extension. the extension must be updated also 17:12:56 gl: some ext. might not be available. 17:13:26 jr: concern. next version of software might break anything in UAAG. this is a big change 17:13:35 gl: take responsibility 17:14:09 jr: UA version x works with ext. version y. 17:14:40 kp: this is good, don't have to support or develop further, just ensure it works. 17:15:15 jr: it becomes a claim for business relationship and technical working 17:16:15 ... we have conditions for current versions. this puts condition on the future. UA needs to establish relationships with ext. developters 17:16:39 kp: seems to discourage use of extensions. 17:17:31 jr: what if there is 'or', define actively maintained. if no active maintain then don't break ext. used in claim for next release 17:17:59 kp: UA keep a list of things not to break on next releases. 17:18:31 ... as a small .com maintaining .ext can break the company 17:19:29 gl: UA changes API to improve functioning...but breaks extensions. when ext. is not supported...no time to update, then ext. is gone. usually 1 maintainer. 17:19:43 ... UA doesn't see these 17:20:41 kp: letting developers know about what is changing. UA care about ext. devs 17:20:51 ... give heads up or take it over. 17:21:07 kp: +1 to 'or' 17:21:47 jr: UA actively maintain or support/heads-up to developers 17:22:00 jr: these are normative 17:22:10 jr: testable 17:22:21 js: don't have to test, not an SC 17:22:41 jr: maintain for 6 months. 17:23:10 gl: some ext. don't break and haven't been updated. but what happens when they do break 17:23:53 jr: so, ext. works in this version. trying to consider future versions 17:24:21 kp: what happens when it stops working. who knows 17:27:00 kf: what level is this 17:27:09 ja: in conformance claim 17:27:21 jr: essentially level A 17:27:30 kf: no one will do this 17:27:54 jr: unless we have some changes can't support 17:29:21 kf: concerned about b. maintained by UA developer 17:29:51 ... maintained implies ownership of the code 17:30:26 ... 'UA ensures compatibility with the extension' 17:30:42 jr: so only works for this version. 17:31:10 kf: conformance only works the stated version 17:31:38 -Jan 17:31:40 kf: what is purpose of b. 17:32:14 gl: if extension is out there, obscure, or have to pay. 17:32:26 kf: A, C, D cover those 17:33:27 kf: remove B 17:33:47 ... UA would not bet UA conformance on some random extension 17:35:00 as written today, UAx can make a conformance claim because that extension exits. then ext. can ask UAx for money to maintain extension to keep conformance. 17:35:51 kf: to the extent that a UA wants to make a conformance claim, they mostly won't use 3rd party extensions. 17:36:33 objections to removing B. 17:36:40 none heard 17:37:41 Resolution: accept in Conformance Applicability Notes - 6. Extensions: Success criteria can be met by a user agent alone or in 17:37:43 conjunction with extensions and add-ons, as long long as those are: 17:37:45 (a) discoverable by the user 17:37:46 (b) no extra cost to the user 17:37:48 (c) easily installed (i.e. not requiring expert knowledge or editing of 17:37:49 configuration files, databases, or registry entries) 17:37:51 See Components of UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claims 17:39:03 topic: indicator of limited conformance claim 17:39:12 any objections -- 17:39:16 none heard 17:39:50 topic: Limited conformance for extensions section 17:39:54 Current: This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in 17:39:56 with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An 17:39:57 extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success 17:39:59 criterion or a narrow range of success criteria as stated in the claim. 17:40:00 All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in 17:40:02 must not cause the combined user agent (hosting user agent plus 17:40:03 installed extension or plug-in) to fail any success criteria that the 17:40:05 hosting user agent would otherwise pass. 17:41:21 Proposed: 17:41:23 This option may be used for a user agent extension or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success criteria as stated in the claim. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not Applicable. UAAG recognizes that some extensions may be so specialized to... 17:41:24 ...the needs of a particular disability that the extension is be mutually exclusive with other success criteria of UAAG, but the goal would be for extensions to work with the user agent so that any features of the user agent needed for UAAG conformance are not broken by one extension. If the extension limits other accessibility features of the user agent, then include a statement to that... 17:41:26 ...effect: "This extension breaks success criterion (SC) x.x.x for this class of users because it is intended to meet 'foo' need of this other class of user." 17:42:37 any objections? 17:42:43 none heard 17:44:15 action: jeanne to update the document with the approved wording for 6. (all but b), adding 4. check box, and new Limited Conformance for extensions wording 17:44:15 Created ACTION-982 - Update the document with the approved wording for 6. (all but b), adding 4. check box, and new limited conformance for extensions wording [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-06-05]. 17:44:24 close action-980 17:44:24 Closed action-980. 17:46:09 Topic: comment MS06 17:46:18 http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/ 17:47:54 js: change paradigm for levels of SC 17:49:23 ... not about PWD only about A. UA and environment, AA aid overcoming content failures, AAA find solution 17:49:51 initial response: If a large portion of the content on the web does not entirely comply with WCAG 2.0, I do not feel that user agents should be absolved from responsibility for compensating for those deficiencies where the techniques for doing so are well understood and reasonable. Of course, that is not to say user agents can decide not to take those steps, but doing so should have the... 17:49:52 ...consequence of not being able to claim to be as fully accessible as users would expect. Just as most users expect browsers to make best efforts to render content that has errors in its HTML, users will expect browsers to make reasonable effort to render content that does not fully and accurately comply with WCAG, and we would be doing an injustice to say a browser is doing its part if it... 17:49:54 ...fails to make those efforts. Of course, the user agent will not be faulted for failing to remedy inadequate documents if it simply refuses to render them at all. That being said, please point out any specific success criteria that you feel are “unclear, untested, or unrealistic”, or that should be reprioritized from A to AA or AAA; such specific input would be more useful than broad... 17:49:55 ...generalizations. 17:50:25 gl: which SC are miss-categorized. 17:51:15 current levels 17:51:19 Level A success criteria address needs where (a) groups of people with disabilities are blocked from information or accomplishing a task, and/or (b) provide solutions that are relatively minor for developers to implement or are common in the marketplace. 17:51:21 Level AA success criteria address needs where (a) groups of people with disabilities have difficulty accessing information or accomplishing a task (including tasks causing excessive fatigue) and/or (b) the solutions may be more difficult to implement. 17:51:22 Level AAA success criteria address needs where (a) the solution improves accessibility or reduces fatigue for specific groups of people with disabilities and/or (b) the solution is very difficult to implement. 17:52:09 js: UAAG def is user oriented 17:52:31 ... proposal is UA utility oriented. 17:53:00 ... don't know how we would map our SC to the proposed model. 17:53:20 kp: almost all of our SCs map to level A 17:54:20 kp: comment also seems to want to narrow the scope. but no specifics. 17:54:53 gl: want to include futuristic stuff is to push the UA to do more 17:55:01 ... at the AAA level 17:55:40 kp: we balance the user and developer, because we are concerned about the difficulty of implementing 17:56:02 ... but commenter does not consider difficulty 17:57:25 kp: we have different opinions about generally accessible UI and provides programmatic access. comments seem a misconception of what we wrote. 17:57:46 ... perhaps also an education problem. 18:00:05 use "Just as most users expect browsers to make best efforts to render content that has errors in its HTML, users will expect browsers to make reasonable effort to render content that does not fully and accurately comply with WCAG, and we would be doing an injustice to say a browser is doing its part if it fails to make those efforts." 18:00:25 point to http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#intro-conf-levels for explaination of levels 18:01:33 reviewed proposed levels and feel the entire document meets the commenter's proposed Level A 18:02:41 comment did not take into account difficulty of implementation. we did 18:03:23 kp; we are in agreement with ABCD of comment, but we balance the benefit to the user vs the difficulty of implementation 18:03:44 s/kp;/kp: 18:04:06 we spread SCs across 3 levels because of the balance 18:05:54 commenter suggests that Level A only concern is about content that meets WCAG20... 18:06:06 "The commenter suggests that any SC relating to the rendering of content that fails to completely meet WCAG 2.0 should be relegated to lower priority levels." 18:07:42 response to Level A: "Just as most users expect browsers to make best efforts to render content that has errors in its HTML, users will expect browsers to make reasonable effort to render content that does not fully and accurately comply with WCAG, and we would be doing an injustice to say a browser is doing its part if it fails to make those efforts." 18:09:48 Kim will smith a response based on the above. 18:09:59 Topic: MS07 18:10:15 "Think beyond the desktop" 18:10:53 initial response: if there are specific success criteria that you feel can better address devices with small screens and which perhaps lack keyboard input, please point them out. 18:11:45 js: mobile keyboards are not used for navigation. UAAG says they must 18:12:11 gl: no, we say keyboard or keyboard emulator 18:12:31 gl: can you connect a bluetooth keyboard 18:12:55 js: but tab does not work, arrow keys have limitations. 18:13:19 js: we need to look at this. 18:14:20 ja: What about device independence note. 18:14:54 js: not testable, and overridden by 2.1.1 - full keyboard functionality 18:21:01 kp: there are apps that have keyboard shortcuts. 18:21:12 js: we have a problem 18:21:54 ... add a phrase "keyboard features supported by the platform can be operated via the keyboard" 18:22:25 current: 2.1.1 Provide Full Keyboard Functionality: All functionality can be operated via the keyboard using sequential or direct keyboard commands that do not require specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints (e.g. free hand drawing). This does not forbid and... 18:22:26 ...should not discourage providing other input methods in addition to keyboard operation including mouse, touch, gesture and speech. (Level A) 18:23:23 All functionality supported by the keyboard interface of the platform can be operated... 18:23:57 proposed: 2.1.1 Provide Full Keyboard Functionality: All functionality provided by the keyboard interface of the platform can be operated via the keyboard using sequential or direct keyboard commands that do not require specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints... 18:23:59 ...(e.g. free hand drawing). This does not forbid and should not discourage providing other input methods in addition to keyboard operation including mouse, touch, gesture and speech. (Level A) 18:24:27 js: then need to add explanation to intent and examples 18:24:54 comments on the proposal? 18:25:05 gl: don't agree. working on response 18:27:39 kp: we say Keyboard, but mean IndieUI. 18:28:12 js: Navigation is the sticking point. breaks for devices with out keyboard 18:29:03 js: if it is not supported on platform that has something better, do we want to make them go back to keyboard. 18:29:37 kp: better for whom. keyboard works for those who can't "pinch to zoom". 18:29:52 ... we should be talking about both. 18:30:20 kp: touch is better for many. speech is incomplete. 18:30:27 -[Microsoft] 18:31:06 ... touch on desktop. many solutions are incomplete, shouldn't have to choose among them. 18:31:49 ... if there were full keyboard access to smart devices, you would see more keyboard access 18:32:31 kp: we are prescribing how users need to use a device. we shouldn't 18:33:11 gl: talked about replacing "keyboard" with some other term. 'discrete input' 18:33:38 js: 2.1.1 is the most prescriptive. keyboard or kb interface 18:33:47 kp: we mean indieUI 18:33:54 gl: or API, 18:34:10 how about keyboard, keyboard interface, or indie ui event 18:34:29 ... if just for text input, not good enough. need navigation and interaction control 18:35:39 ja: platform interaction API 18:36:27 action: jeanne to check with MC about language for alternative for keyboard interface, indieUI 18:36:27 Created ACTION-983 - Check with mc about language for alternative for keyboard interface, indieui [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-06-05]. 18:37:07 rrsagent, make minutes 18:37:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:38:52 kp: we use 'equivelencies' swipe, touch, tap, etc. speech user says "launch foo". not equivalent at all! 18:39:32 kp: I want both 18:39:47 ... when I am supporting someone, or testing 18:40:26 platform interaction API(s) - touch, keyboard, voice, shake, rattle, roll 18:42:35 rrsagent, make minutes 18:42:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:44:45 -Kim_Patch 18:44:50 -Jeanne 18:44:52 -Jim_Allan 18:44:53 -Greg_Lowney 18:44:55 WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended 18:44:55 Attendees were [Microsoft], Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, Greg_Lowney, Jan 18:45:06 zakim, please part 18:45:06 Zakim has left #ua 18:45:18 rrsagent, make minutes 18:45:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:45:50 s/equivelencies/equivalencies 18:45:54 rrsagent, make minutes 18:45:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:46:27 present+ Kelly 18:46:31 rrsagent, make minutes 18:46:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-minutes.html allanj 18:46:52 rrsagent, please part 18:46:52 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-actions.rdf : 18:46:52 ACTION: jeanne to update the document with the approved wording for 6. (all but b), adding 4. check box, and new Limited Conformance for extensions wording [1] 18:46:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-irc#T17-44-15 18:46:52 ACTION: jeanne to check with MC about language for alternative for keyboard interface, indieUI [2] 18:46:52 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/29-ua-irc#T18-36-27