See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 July 2014
<scribe> scribe: allanj
<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/
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.
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)
discussing timing issues.
jr: testing is difficult, don't
know where the delay is coming from.
... propose remove this SC
<kford> +1
jr: +1
<jeanne> JS: +1 to delete
ja: +1
kim has issues with the timing. large problem with speech input. Kelly - yes it is an issue but the UA has no control of those timing issues.
gl: support consensus of the group
RESOLUTION: remove SC 4.1.7 from the document
http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0006.html
jr: we need to review the summary- SC agreement after comments are done.
jim comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0007.html
gregs's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0011.html
jan's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0015.html
<Jan> ARIA politness levels http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#liveprops
jr: concerned about a specific SC for a technology. we already have SC to implement features of a technology so the UA should already be handling ARIA
current: a. Recognized messages that are low priority
proposed by CA01: a) Messages and content that are non-essential or low priority for the user
<Greg> Yes, we could reword the SC to remove content, making it only about UA UI, and add a Note stating that the equivalent with regard to content is covered by the other SC.
<Greg> That is, with regard to recognized low-priority notifications in content.
jr: how do we determine UA low priority messages from UAUI
kf: ARIA politeness is set by author. screen readers read aria messages from content though not from the UA
jr: testing issue...do I have to wait until the next UA update to test.
<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_311
jr: seems that our example
""Shirley has a cognitive disability and is distracted by the page flicker. A web page has a stock market ticker that is coded as having a WAI-ARIA low priority level, so she changes the browser's preference setting to indicate that regions with low priority level should not be automatically updated."
scribe: this may be changing the meaning of WCAG SC
jr: what is the fails for
this?
... Acrobat Viewer, open a pdf file, it opens but inoperable,
because of a pop under window, requesting an update.
gl: open a Word doc, the message pops up that macros are disabled but needed for the document to work?
<Greg> It seems that the "don't ask me this again" is separate from the "low priority" issues.
gl: this type of message vs the don't ask me again
jr: don't keep asking me for the same type of decision
ja: "do this always' do this only once
gl: settings - turn on and off certain types of notifications
jr: where you have asked for a
decision, there is some mechanism to not repeat asking.
... what constitutes a stupid question. in W2013 if you have a
doc not from your computer it asks about opening and macros
ja: how do we test this. there are messages we are so used to seeing that we ignore, or have permanently dismissed. how do we find them. there are likely dozens
jr: perhaps drop this. not testable.
js: commentors want it more strict, we are saying to drop it.
jr: thanks for calling it to our
attention. but in group discussion we determined we could not
test this.
... its a usability issue.
js: the COG TF wants it to me more strict
the addition to this SC is b)Messages, features and content that are not part of the core use-cases for the content.
ja: there is no way the UA can know what is the core use-case for the content.
kf: drop the entire thing 3.1.1
js: should keep b. Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing and c. Rendered content that is being updated or changing
jr: UAUI changes - media player
with a moving progress bar, should a user be able to turn this
off.
... need compelling use cases
js: will yield to group concensus
kf: this is a tough issue. am sure there are good use cases; we need to find how to test it.
gl: we know what we can recommend but what to require is a different thing
kf: browsers are making their interfaces more simple
jr: need testing requirements
js: how to test for the messages; what is important; what can be avoided;
Jim will talk to COGA and invite to group
current text: (b) Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing
comment CA03: CA03: Also we think it needs to be easy to do this - not just possible. So maybe add To ensure that it is easy to avoid or defer this content it should: Be not more then two steps, Such as: One step to select avoid or defer them and a conformation step. Only simple and clear text and symbols should be used in controls to avoid or defer this content Controls to avoid this type...
scribe: of content should be
positioned above or next to the content that it refers to. Also
the group is working to identify semantics that would make it
possible to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user
end. If this becomes possible and is supported, then it would
be an acceptable alternative to make sure the Messages and
content that are non-essential or low priority for the
user...
... and Messages, features and content that are not part of the
core use-cases for the content can be programmatically
identified.
Suggestion: Filling in
information is much slower and harder for people with cognitive
disabilities. Therefore: Information should be easily
retrievable such as via automatically saving the work so far.
The user should be able to go back a step without losing what
they have submitted. People with cognitive difficulties often
have very low confidence in the accuracy of what they
are...
... submitting and therefore the ability to review and amend
easily is important. Also authors and agents should never try
to confuse the user. For example, the users original selection
/ choice / offering should be selected by default not switched
to the item they want to up-sell , such as expensive options
being placed before the cheaper option that the user thinks
they are selecting....
... (Obvious but worth spelling out anyway...). An example of
this would be AVG antivirus that switches the user to premium
edition and leaves it to the user to switch back. We would like
to include: The original offering/selection should be selected
by default and should not be switched automatically to an
alternative If this is not acceptable maybe include: Label any
alternatives clearly...
... Make it easy to select the original offering: The original
offering should be positioned above or next to the alternative
The original offering should be sized the same or bigger then
the the alternative In the future we may have the semantics
that would make it possible to handle this as an adaptive
interface at the user end. If this becomes possible then it
would be an acceptable...
... alternative to make sure the original selection can be
programmatically identified.
**Discussion: this sounds like usability. The product sellers have arranged the content base on user studies to maximize 'conversion'. If and when semantics are available, and authors use them; browsers may have control over the display of the semantic elements. Until then, browsers cannot control this type of information.
Propose: not accepted.
<jeanne> I think this is mostly content, and not user agent
gl: some is about content, however...
jr: we don't have an SC for saving form content for later use.
gl: go to the same page, and have a page repopulated.
js: what about dynamic content?
jr: saving form entries for later reuse is not a bad thing
ja: what about save page as? I can recall the saved page and copy and paste
gl: not good enough, must auto fill
<jeanne> LastPass has extensions for major browsers that allows you to set up profiles for form data. https://lastpass.com/
COG comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2014Feb/0000.html
<Jan> ACTION: JR to start a draft SC re: saving certain form inputs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-999 - Start a draft sc re: saving certain form inputs [on Jan Richards - due 2014-07-24].
<scribe> ACTION: jim to tell Cog-TF that UAWG is dropping 3.1 as not testable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1000 - Tell cog-tf that uawg is dropping 3.1 as not testable [on Jim Allan - due 2014-07-24].
rrsagent: make minutes
<jeanne> RichS would be the perfect person to ask about it, as he is also an ARIA expert
repurposing aria politeness such that thing marked as off should not be live updated visually.
rrsagent: make minutes
rrsagent: make minutes
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/topic: CA01 3.1.1/topic: CA02 3.1.1/ Succeeded: s/I think this is all content, and not user agent/I think this is mostly content, and not user agent/ Found Scribe: allanj Inferring ScribeNick: allanj Default Present: kford, Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Jan, Greg_Lowney Present: kford Jim_Allan Jeanne Jan Greg_Lowney Regrets: kim eric Found Date: 17 Jul 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html People with action items: jim jr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]