IRC log of ua on 2014-07-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:01:52 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #ua

17:01:52 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-irc

17:01:54 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

17:01:56 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG

17:01:57 [trackbot]

Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

17:01:57 [trackbot]

Date: 10 July 2014

17:02:04 [Jan]

zakim, code?

17:02:05 [allanj]

rrsagent, set logs public

17:02:06 [KimPatch]

KimPatch has joined #ua

17:02:16 [allanj]

chair: jimallan, kellyford

17:02:22 [Jan]

zakim, code?

17:02:24 [allanj]

rrsagent, make minutes

17:02:24 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj

17:03:06 [allanj]

code is 82941

17:03:09 [Greg]

Greg has joined #ua

17:04:09 [allanj]

regrets: eric

17:05:09 [allanj]

regrets+ jeanne

17:07:00 [allanj]

topic: rewrite of 1.10.1

17:07:28 [allanj]

proposed:

17:07:32 [allanj]

1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA):

17:07:34 [allanj]

* label for a control or image (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)

17:07:35 [allanj]

* caption for a table

17:07:37 [allanj]

* row and column labels for a table cell

17:07:55 [allanj]

scribe: allanj

17:08:07 [Jan]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0014.html

17:08:11 [allanj]

jr: concerned about HTML mentioned in sc

17:08:42 [allanj]

ja: fine with leaving HTML out, just use label element

17:11:25 [allanj]

gl: in 2.3.3 we say landmark - this is a generic term, unless we qualify by saying aria-landmark. we should be clear

17:11:53 [allanj]

jr: we should do it same way through out document

17:12:24 [Greg]

Similarly, Summary of 2.6 uses "onmouseover" without explaining it's an HTML etc. attribute.

17:13:28 [allanj]

gl: fine with leaving out the example, assume it will be explained in implementing document

17:13:51 [Greg]

I'm okay omitting the entire parenthetical e.g. and explaining it in the Implementing document. I just tend to include parenthetical examples, perhaps too often.

17:13:56 [allanj]

proposed:

17:14:06 [allanj]

1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA):

17:14:08 [allanj]

* label for a control or image

17:14:09 [allanj]

* caption for a table

17:14:11 [allanj]

* row and column labels for a table cell

17:14:42 [allanj]

ja: any objections?

17:14:44 [allanj]

none heard

17:15:00 [allanj]

gl: examples need to go in the implementing doc

17:16:00 [allanj]

action: jeanne add 1.10.1 1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (Level AA): * label for a control or image * caption for a table * row and column labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc

17:16:00 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-996 - Add 1.10.1 1.10.1 access related information: the user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the following (level aa): * label for a control or image * caption for a table * row and column labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. html label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc [on Jeanne F

17:16:01 [trackbot]

... Spellman - due 2014-07-17].

17:16:51 [allanj]

close action-995

17:16:51 [trackbot]

Closed action-995.

17:17:18 [Greg]

Chatzilla really should not bold text after an asterisk if it's followed by a space.

17:19:02 [allanj]

Action: jeanne to revise IER for 1.10.1 to match the new wording of the SC

17:19:02 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-997 - Revise ier for 1.10.1 to match the new wording of the sc [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-07-17].

17:21:03 [Greg]

I note that the Intent for 1.10.1 explicitly mentioned use of id and child elements, neither of which apply any more except in very limited cases (e.g. aria-labelledby).

17:21:58 [allanj]

topic: SH05 Principle 3

17:22:06 [allanj]

For the understandability principle, then isn't this a little all encompassing. There is nothing about simple language usage or graphic usage for people with a learning disability. So my question is understandable to whom?

17:22:51 [Jan]

http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

17:24:04 [allanj]

jr: we have requirement that web-base user agents follow WCAG (simple language) AAA

17:25:00 [allanj]

... had the same issue of ATAG, a11y of the platform based tool. is there a higher bar for web-based that platform-based.

17:25:43 [allanj]

jr: we used the 'key' parts of WCAG for the platform-based tools. Perhaps UAAG should do the same.

17:26:18 [allanj]

gl: do we need to add new SCs to cover understandable.

17:27:04 [allanj]

ja: perhaps the issue is with the term "understandable"

17:27:25 [Greg]

I doubt it's feasible for us to add a new SCs for understandability at this point.

17:28:00 [allanj]

jr: wcag could/should apply to software

17:28:59 [Greg]

s/add a new SCs/add a bunch of new SCs/

17:29:41 [Jan]

FYI http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#understandable

17:29:46 [allanj]

kp: is the issue that Principle 3 is too broad

17:31:33 [allanj]

kp: P3 is an organizing principle, though it is not all encompassing

17:32:28 [allanj]

gl: simple language for interface

17:33:07 [allanj]

kp: is it more or less important in WCAG or UAAG. seems more in WCAG.

17:34:13 [allanj]

... putting all of WCAG in UAAG would clutter the document. UAAG has chosen the bits we felt important

17:35:02 [allanj]

jr: what if in 5.1 we put a note that non-web UAs look at WCAG for interface design.

17:35:51 [Jan]

oops call dropped

17:37:40 [kford]

kford has joined #ua

17:37:48 [kford]

zakim, microsoft is kford

17:39:04 [Jan]

http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/

17:40:48 [allanj]

kp: if remove the part in 5.1.1 about web-based UA and just make it UAs, and point to wcagict

17:41:49 [Jan]

5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: User agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)

17:41:50 [Jan]

Note: To understand how this success criterion applies to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, refer to Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).

17:43:51 [allanj]

gl: if you want to test FF for new 5.1.1... are we going to create use cases for every wcag SC to apply to UAs

17:44:42 [allanj]

jr: ATAG relies on wcag tests

17:44:55 [allanj]

gl: this scares me

17:45:26 [allanj]

jr: did you have a concern about old 5.1.1 for web-based UAs

17:45:40 [allanj]

gl: not sure there are any tests for WCAG2ICT

17:46:11 [allanj]

jr: re: evaluation methodology is out.

17:46:27 [Greg]

I assumed that the old 5.1.1 was testable because W3C had approved test cases for WCAG on web content, but probably not for WCAG2ICT.

17:47:14 [allanj]

... no tests for WCAG2ICT compliance.

17:47:49 [allanj]

gl: what tests will UAWG have to create to allow developers to meet 5.1.1 (proposed)

17:48:02 [allanj]

ja: sounds like there are no tests.

17:48:38 [allanj]

jr: excellent point

17:49:26 [allanj]

jr: in the end, UAWG was trying to make some guidelines that go beyond basic software accessibility.

17:49:49 [allanj]

... ok with leaving 5.1.1 as it was and not accepting SH05

17:50:28 [allanj]

ja: +1, we covered what we thought was important in Principle 3

17:51:16 [allanj]

gl: leaving 5.1.1. as is easiest course of action. otherwise a big can of worms. are there other reasons than covering Understandability

17:52:18 [allanj]

jr: will we create unintended new requirements base on the convergences of UAAG and WCAG

17:55:53 [allanj]

ja: add a note to principle 3 that UAWG chose the following to cover Understandability of the UA. If the developer wants to go further review WCAG2ICT for guidance.

17:57:11 [allanj]

gl: what about adding a note to 5.1.1 also. seems more appropriate.

17:57:31 [allanj]

jr: note only on 5.1.1 not principle 3

17:58:04 [Jan]

5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)

17:58:06 [Jan]

Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is receommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces refer to Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).

17:58:15 [allanj]

rrsagent, make minutes

17:58:15 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj

17:58:48 [allanj]

ja: +1

17:58:52 [allanj]

kp: +1

17:59:44 [allanj]

ja: any objections?

18:00:26 [Jan]

5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)

18:00:27 [Jan]

Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).

18:01:20 [Greg]

Take out "developers of"?

18:01:32 [Jan]

5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)

18:01:34 [Jan]

Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).

18:02:16 [Greg]

("Non-web-based user agent user interfaces" is such a horrible noun-stack.)

18:02:39 [Jan]

Back to...

18:02:41 [Jan]

5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)

18:02:43 [Jan]

Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).

18:02:47 [Jan]

JR: +1

18:03:01 [Greg]

GL: +1

18:03:07 [allanj]

action: jeanne to add to 5.1.1 Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications...

18:03:07 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-998 - Add to 5.1.1 note: this success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). however, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the guidance on applying wcag 2.0 to non-web information and communications... [on Jeanne F Spellman - due

18:03:08 [trackbot]

... 2014-07-17].

18:03:08 [allanj]

...Technologies (WCAG2ICT). replacing old note.

18:05:00 [allanj]

jr: calling out UAUI in this doc may diminish the impact of 5.1.1 note, seems contradictory

18:05:07 [allanj]

gl: example?

18:05:30 [allanj]

jr: 2.1.5 & 2.1.6,

18:06:48 [allanj]

jr: 215 says UI, 216 say UAUI but say the same thing other wise

18:09:22 [allanj]

gl: note in 511 doesn't address comment about understandability

18:09:53 [allanj]

http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

18:10:11 [allanj]

gl: graphic usage or simple wording.

18:10:54 [Greg]

Simon gave two examples of where Principle 3 failed to address aspects of understandability: simple language, and graphics as alternative to text. The note on 5.1.1 might address the first (in a roundabout way), but what about the second?

18:11:19 [allanj]

jr: it does. WCAG lots on wording, pronunciation, etc. nothing about graphics

18:12:32 [allanj]

... media alternative for text

18:13:00 [allanj]

... but, no requirement for media as an alternative for text.

18:13:21 [Greg]

If WCAG uses the term Understandability without addressing people who cannot read, then I guess we can, too. (Although of course it would be nice not to ignore those issues.)

18:13:50 [allanj]

jr: UAAG cannot go further than WCAG on media replacement for text. see cognitive task force

18:15:50 [allanj]

response - UAAG accepts, added note to 5.1.1, to encourage developers to incorporate WCAG into the process. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that were feasible and important

18:16:15 [allanj]

... include text of the note.

18:18:17 [Jan]

Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that were feasible and important.

18:20:48 [Greg]

"While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and feasible."?

18:21:41 [allanj]

Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and feasible.

18:21:54 [Greg]

Just softening it a bit, acknowledging that he's in fact correct about his original observation.

18:22:27 [allanj]

RESOLUTION: Response to SH05: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0. While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important and...

18:22:28 [allanj]

...feasible.

18:22:52 [allanj]

Topic SH06 4.1.7

18:23:04 [allanj]

is about making API Calls be timely such that delays aren't perceived by users, but this is difficult if the software interfaced to us not timely, people may the perceive a delay. I think this needs to be a little more explicit.

18:23:33 [allanj]

4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchanges Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed at a rate such that users do not perceive a delay. (Level A)

18:24:24 [allanj]

ja: does this need specific timings... .5 seconds

18:24:43 [allanj]

jr: depends on computing environment

18:25:32 [allanj]

gl: not more explicit about time, but about APIs that are causing problems that are beyond the control of the UA

18:26:25 [Greg]

I think Simon's saying, not that we need to be explicit about a minimum time delay, but that the UA is not held responsible for delays outside of its control. For example, if the UA API function call the OS which takes a half second to return, that is not violating 4.1.7 because the UA did not itself introduce the delay.

18:28:27 [Greg]

How about "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that (the user agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that users would perceive the delay. (Level A)"

18:29:34 [Greg]

That is, "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that *the user agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that users would perceive the delay. (Level A)"

18:29:47 [allanj]

kf: this is useless without metrics.

18:30:03 [allanj]

kp: timing issues are huge with speech

18:30:40 [allanj]

kf: this is about how quickly an AT can build a list of UI elements

18:31:05 [allanj]

gl: well, AT queries UA, and the call returns (that is the cycle time)

18:31:42 [allanj]

ja: how do we test this. how do we know whose fault it is.

18:31:58 [allanj]

kf: we should remove this.

18:32:39 [allanj]

... after further reflection this is not a testable criteria. General software performance suggests developers should be doing this anyway

18:33:06 [allanj]

kp: timing kills speech. timing cascades build and cause problems

18:33:27 [allanj]

kf: those delays are not caused by inter API communication

18:34:39 [allanj]

kf: IE with narrator - ask for list of UI elements, can take SECONDS. but the problem is not IEs fault.

18:35:10 [allanj]

kp: are you sure the UA never has anything to do with timing

18:35:47 [Greg]

I am a little concerned that some UA may implement accessibility API in an inefficient (slow) way because it's implemented solely to comply with a requirement, rather than actually to address the needs of users who rely on assistive technology.

18:35:50 [allanj]

kf: this is not testable. what is the appropriate number.

18:36:03 [allanj]

kf: 300 milliseconds

18:36:36 [allanj]

jr: need to test api call and screen reader processing.

18:36:57 [allanj]

kf: the causes of this are not the UA, they cannot fix it.

18:37:32 [allanj]

... fine if we leave it in.

18:38:06 [allanj]

rssagent, make minutes

18:38:32 [allanj]

rrsagent, make minutes

18:38:32 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj

18:38:49 [allanj]

present: jim, kelly, jan, greg, kim

18:38:52 [allanj]

rrsagent, make minutes

18:38:52 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html allanj

21:28:30 [kford]

kford has joined #ua

21:41:33 [kford_]

kford_ has joined #ua