W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2008

minutes: UA WG Weekly Telecon 2008-07-10

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:01:30 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080710195327.M18785@hicom.net>

aloha, all!

minutes from the 10 july 2008 UA WG telecon are available at:

http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html

and are attached as plain text following my signature; there is also 
an IRC log located at:

http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-irc

as usual, any errors, misattributions, omissions, clarifications, and
corrections should be logged by replying to this post on-list

please remember that, at least for the next few meetings, the UA WG call 
will last 90 minutes, beginning at 1900h UTC (2pm to 3:30pm Boston time)

gregory.


                                   - DRAFT -

                       User Agent Weekly Teleconference

10 Jul 2008

   Agenda
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0012.html

   See also: IRC log
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-irc

Attendees

   Present
          +1.512.206.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, Jan_Richards, Jeanne,
          Jim_Allan, Judy, Mark_Hakkinen

   Regrets
          Kelly_Ford, Alan_Cantor

   Chair
          Jim

   Scribe
          Gregory_Rosmaita

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Regrets, agenda requests, comments?
         2. Review of Action Items
         3. Keyboard access and visibility of keyboard controls
         4. 4.1.7
         5. 4.1.8
         6. 4.1.9
         7. Wrapping Up
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________



   <AllanJ> title: UAWG Telecon

   aloha, jim! thanks -- sorry for no explanation - health and
   infrastructural problems both

   i will scribe (my penance, part 1)

   <scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus

Regrets, agenda requests, comments?

   JA: mark may join

   JB: was here last week
   ... agenda additions?

   JA: noticed that working on success criteria, not specific guidelines

   JB: everything with 3 numbers

   JA: may be confusing; need to be reworded so are testable

   JB: at least 1 (4.1)

   JA: everything else working on in area are SC - normative bits for
   keyboard access

   JB: level should be working on?

   JA: yes
   ... full keyboard access has a lot that needs to be included -
   bindings, remappings, etc.
   ... how far did we get?

   JB: new block of proposals from Jeanne; sorted out 1 or 2 and
   identified 1 or 2 for follow up
   ... move forward from that point - if need to backtrack for
   wordsmithing, can check at end of meeting
   ... ok?

   JA: fine

Review of Action Items

   <scribe> ACTION: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard
   shortcuts [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action01]

   trackbot, drop action 1

   JA: Jan? resizing window techs

   JR: examined with Jeanne and am ok with what we ended up with - Jeanne
   did you send to group?
   ... one piece in following URI

   <Jan> Keyboard Operation: All functionality can be operated via the
   keyboard using sequential and/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 should not discourage providing...

   <jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080709.html

   <Jan> ...mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard
   operation.

   <Jan> 4.1.1

   Jeanne: updated

   JR: am happy

   JA: reading - confused - where does it adress resizing windows?

   JR: just because requiring keyboard a11y, have to ensure don't break
   mouse access

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080709.html

   JB: Mark, action item status?

   MH: hand-written notes - have actual text on laptop - need to pull
   off; looked at ATAG as model for rationale; some text there, but 4.1
   "Ensure Keyboard Access" is verbatim from ATAG; others not so good;
   will post to list when get laptop working again
   ... draft comments will be posted ASAP - hopefully later today

   JB: action items - need to check and see if Simon posted to list and
   can close actions

   <jeanne>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0006.html

   JB: his point is if can't articulate rationale don't include; wants us
   to backup every rationale where possible with references from
   scientific literature; wary of that - JTC1 has tried that and there
   are a lot of risks in doing that; literature isn't comprehensive, will
   follow-up on list and should address in future meeting

   JA: second that; while laudable, have a lot of other issues and tasks
   that need work

   JB: might be a mismatch; could link from an "understanding" document,
   but weird things happen when try to do that in primary doc

   JS: dates document more rapidly

   <Judy> ACTION: jb reply to multiple concerns on SH's suggestion about
   linking literature references from UAWG 2.0 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action02]

   JB: can't link to external references from guidelines themselves

   MH: something living independent of guidelines?

   JA: have many other tasks and techniques to draft and review

   JB: other Action Item or Agenda Review items?

   JA: rationale for 4.1 was action item - keep on through SC

   JB: don't need rationale for SC?

   JA: ATAG does only for top level guidelines

   JB: didn't realize shouldn't be doing rationale at that level

   JA: personally, not as chair, think is over kill

   JR: understanding UAAG document would cover it; WCAG doesn't do it per
   SC, but address in understanding doc

   JB: haven't committed to "understanding" doc - what do WG members
   think?

   scribe's note: silence

   JA: have enough on plate - good idea, but how to find cycles

   JB: curious how many read email from 4 july 2008

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua//2008JulSep/0006.html

   JB: proposes rationale for a lot of 4.x - what do we think about this?
   should go into understanding document if one created; would benefit
   adopters, but how useful and how necessary; do we agree with what SH
   wrote?
   ... 4.1.1 to 4.1.6 - what do people think about proposed text?

   JR: good explanations of why those things are SCs; more development
   overhead from doc development POV; would be easier to produce if doc
   more stable

   JA: should state that will create document if have time; always have
   rational for SC, but not in formal listing; formal listing useful, but
   what will we do with it in future? think need GLs first, test suite
   next, then listing

   JS: too long - one sentence rationales was aim; a lot more readable
   and powerful to have sentence than paragraph

   MH: goal is "as short and concise a rationale statement" -

   JB: my take on these and comments on them is a concern: interesting
   and helpful to think about SC (helps focus on it and whether worded
   right) on other hand, approach is inconsistent
   ... main approach SH uses is to give negative examples
   ... "if such isn't available... then user won't be able to do ..."
   ... preferential statement requirements mixed in; if keep, have to
   shoehorn them all into a standard type of statement

   MH: tried to keep to consistent format -

   JB: like a formula for each

   MH: yes
   ... step plus whatever

   JA: SH's work is useful, but not immediately; is important, but needs
   to be reworded and be put into supplemental document

   JB: think is important - if use would NEED to go in supplemental doc
   and not sure if WG will have resources to produce supplemental doc
   ... appreciate SH and MH's energy, but focus on documents we have to
   do
   ... troubles me slightly is for 1 through 6 came up with rationales
   that need rewording; for second half, the attempt to write a rationale
   triggered a "wait a minute?" reaction; could be due to newness to
   group or great way to quality check what we've done

   JA: second half more granular because subsets of what came before (in
   1 through 6)
   ... 4.9 seems like part of 4.1.2 and that's why double-A

   JB: not most efficient time to do these b/c will force us to cycle
   through questions that already are marked for clarification

   JA: call out rationales, collect them for use if can make explanatory
   doc

   JB: Mark x.1.1 level or x.1 level

   MH: x.1 level

   ack me'

   <AllanJ> GJR: collect these on the wiki page, and work on refining as
   time permits

   JB: will include request in my note to SH

   <AllanJ> request is for collecting rationale on wiki

Keyboard access and visibility of keyboard controls

   JA: Jeanne posted both proposals?

   JS: really only 1 - 2 variants; JR and i worked on it and have revised
   4.1.5 and 4.1.x

   <jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080709.html

   JA: move onto 4.1.6
   ... proposed "no change"

   <AllanJ> 4.1.6 Standard Text Area Conventions: Views that render text
   support the standard text area conventions for the platform including,
   but not necessarily limited to: character keys, backspace/delete,
   insert, "arrow" key navigation (e.g., "caret" browsing), page up/page
   down, navigate to start/end, navigate by paragraph, shift-to-select
   mechanism, etc.

   JA: reads from proposal

   JB: maintaining platform consistency to reduce congnative burden - but
   explanation is a bit of a cognative burden

   GJR: seconds that

   JA: most platforms have CTR+RightArrow will always move by word

   JB: nomenclature questions -- need clear concise titles
   ... one question is what is our goal in terms of standard language
   format for 4.1 GL
   ... extant text makes sense - a statement/command
   ... SC level are noun phrases
   ... is it our intent to leave like that instead of a statement of what
   these things are?
   ... what are standard TEXTAREA conventions?

   JA: In ATAG contains short keywords
   ... good to raise if makes more understandable
   ... important to have outsider review

   JB: ATAG SC 8.1.3.1 - not consistent

   JS: WCAG SC are 2.1.1 keyboard 2.1.2 no keyboard trap 2.1.3 no
   exceptions

   JB: noun-phrase but descriptive

   JR: can you tell?

   JB: perhaps not always
   ... very short keywords

   JA: been following example set by others

   JB: majority of ATAG SC are short keywords
   ... 4.1.6 - will comment on it offline

   JA: only thing i think should have is standard TEXTAREA navigation
   convention so we know talking specifically about keyboard navigation

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if should collect in UAWG wiki
   page? and to say PF is addressing this with TEXTAREA and ARIA

   JR: agree with JimA at this point

   MH: nothing to add

   JB: in this case, would be easy to put verb in front =
   ... "use ..."
   ... others may not be so easy to

   JA: verbify

   JB: exactly; good keyword makes text more understandable
   ... need to orient developer

   JA: principles and GLs are verbified, SCs are mostly noun keywords

   JB: online discussion or editors' discussion?
   ... could gather few editing items and put on agenda to address one by
   one

   proposed ACTION: Judy and Jeanne - figure out right time and place to
   cluster editorial issues to get UAAG2 more consistent - verbify
   keywords for SC

   <scribe> ACTION: Judy and Jeanne - plan time and place to discuss
   cluster of editorial issues to get UAAG2 more consistent - address
   verbification of keywords for SCs [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action03]

   <Judy> ACTION: JA, JB, JS to figure a time & place to discuss a bunch
   of editorial issues (such as whether to "verbify" the success
   criteria) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action04]

   rssagent, make minutes

   JB: 4.1.6 - no changes other than our discussion above about heading
   phrasing - other comments?

   JA: add word "navigation" before convention
   ... close 4.1.6, move on to 4.1.7

   <AllanJ> 4.1.7 User Interface Navigation: The user can use the
   keyboard to traverse all of the controls forwards and backwards,
   including controls in floating toolbars, panels, and user agent
   extensions using the conventions of the platform (e.g., via "tab",
   "shift-tab", etc. ")

   i/4.1.7. User/TOPIC: 4.1.9

4.1.7

   JS: chrome navigation versus UI navigation

   JB: had chrome discussion last week - trying to be careful to reduce
   use of it where possible, since defining differently from where using
   in certain places encased in quotes - not universal dev jargon;
   appreciate were we go to with that

   JA: glad discussing this again; in past, over a year ago, had
   discussed separating UAAG into 2 parts: 1) everything to do with UI
   with SC; 2) section on just content/viewport a11y stuff with GLs for
   keyboard and DI; 1 part for UI 1 part for content
   ... confusing in UAAG 1.0 - should readdress this now
   ... how to keep straight UI of chrome versus UI of content/viewport

   JB: keep honing in on titles of SCs - this title is misleading
   ... "using conventions of the platform" overlaps with requirement in
   4.1.6; less about UI navigation and more about keyboard access TO
   keyboard navigation
   ... reviewed other SCs - ought to change title - sounds like random
   bit about navigation, but this is something we are keying in on and
   want maximum exposure

   JS: example of what rather see?

   JB: keyboard access to keyboard navigation
   ... too long? is it in the right place? should be called something
   else, would belong where currently is

   JA: last bunch specific to UI; understand JB's issue with keyword
   intro; description addresses keyboard

   GJR plus one to JB's Keyboard Access to Keyboard Navigation

   JR: looking at 4.1.1. - all functionality can be operated from the
   keyboard..."

   JB: redundant

   JR: user can traverse all controls sequentially

   JB: redundant

   JR: not necessarily - not all controls, but all functionality - can't
   get to panels, but can get to menus

   JB: "all functionality" sounds inclusive to me

   JR: would drop to double-A

   JA: yes

   JR: if something on toolbar, should be able to get to it somehow

   JA: mis-spoke - is single A

   JB: 4.1.7 sufficiently covered by any differences should be folded
   into 4.1.6 unless something significantly different to warrant
   separation
   ... 4.1.6 standard conventions of platform

   JR: 4.1.7 adds to 4.1.1

   JA: 4.1.1 history is got granular because overall base user agent
   covered by 4.1.1 and trying to get granular in 4.1.7 - if add
   extension to UA, provide keyboard interface

   JB: should be in 4.1.1

   MH: 4.1.7 - user agent extensions; what if developed on one platform
   that is inconsistent on other platforms
   ... potential problem

   should i log ACTION: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for
   redundancy ???

   <scribe> ACTION: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for
   redundancy ??? [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action05]

   JB: more we can distill these down, the better it will be for all
   ... move on to 4.1.8

4.1.8

   <AllanJ> 4.1.8 Ensure Keyboard Commands: Any user interface component
   that can receive focus has a keyboard command unless the operating
   environment prevents it. Currently visible user interface components
   visually indicate their keyboard shortcuts.

   JA: used to be huge and proscriptive; pulled from UAAG1, been
   tersified
   ... wording contains a confusing part

   JB: this is one where need to de-verbify to be consistent with current
   format; if did wouuld be indistinguishable from others in section;
   helps with skim reading, which is important
   ... devs want ability to skim and understand scope on skim
   ... in terms of phrasing, first sentence makes sense

   JA: original stated user has option to enable keystrokes to particular
   function; that concept fell out in this proposal

   JR: some things so important need keyboard access, now saying need
   keyboard access to everything

   JB: 4.1.8 is redundant with 4.1.5

   JS: didn't get sense of uniqueness in 4.1.8 - important, need clear
   way to say; easy to get lost

   JA: level 2, so is extension of 4.1.5

   JR: 4.1.1 says sequential or direct to get to all functionalities; in
   this case, these set of things have to be accessible; then we state
   you need to programmatically indicate them

   JA: path of finer granularity

   JB: 4.1.5 - show on screen and programmatically; looking at 4.1.5 one
   problem that i've seen is confusion between programmatic access and
   people turning into an either or
   ... 4.1.5 should be split so absolutely no confusion
   ... wonder if would be advantage to split, because use cases could be
   handled differently
   ... do those things apply to programmatic bindings as well as visual
   indicators

   JR: 4.1.x that Jeanne and i proposed split thte other way UA commands
   (open menu item) and recognized commands from content (accesskey)

   scribe's note: #60 to mute, #61 to unmute

   scribe's note: #40 to raise hand; #41 to lower hand

   JR: agree with JB's division - need to ensure people see as AND and
   not OR

   JB: opportunity to clarify other items, too
   ... original meaning somewhat lost; what have now is redundant; need
   fresh effort to rewrite 4.1.8

   <scribe> ACTION: Jeanne - propose rewrite for Section 4.1.8 [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action06]

   JB: for next pass, leave this intact as background and have one page
   on which the most stripped down version of latest proposals are
   presented sequentially (refer only as "used to be x.x.x" - don't want
   to trip WG up over too much history; streamlined view will facillitate
   scrubbing up

   GJR: plus 1

   JS: plus 1

   <scribe> ACTION: Jan - propose rewrite for 4.1.5 and nex 4.1.x
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action07]

   JS: put into editors draft to be reviewed in context

   JB: may be one week away from doing that

   proposed ACTION: Jeanne - build new streamlined framework (1 or 2
   sentences for each SC)

   <scribe> ACTION: Jeanne - build new streamlined framework for 4.1.* (1
   or 2 sentences for each SC) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action08]

4.1.9

   <AllanJ> 4.1.9 Precedence of Keystroke Processing: Keystrokes are
   processed in the following order: user agent user interface, user
   agent extensions, content keystroke operations administered by the
   user agent (e.g., access keys), and executable content (e.g., key
   press events in scripts, etc.).

   JB: also comment on 4.1.9

   <jeanne> Simon's comment:**COMMENT*** It seems we should look at this
   and 4.1.2 together - if

   <jeanne> we define a precedence why do we then need to make sure the

   <jeanne> precedence is documented unless 4.1.2 is A conformance and
   4.1.9 is AA?

   JA: more granularity

   JB: SH comment was look at this and 4.1.2 together
   ... in next draft, ought to reconstruct priority level and do rough
   attempt at reordering them?
   ... all single A first then double A right

   JA: that's how are organized
   ... wanted to make this a single A with 1.2 - all browsers if
   javascript gets first, trickle in through another mechanism
   ... preference: UA gets first, cascade down and scripts get last
   ... user agent first then extension (UA knows about and controls) -
   that which happens in javascript UA knowns nothing about it, but
   author can override keybindings with script; user has no cognizance
   just frustration; current practice is scripts get first and then write
   to Accessibility API to alert AT

   JB: significant problem and not asking for what is needed?

   JA: didn't think would ever happen

   JB: need to be clear

   JA: specific rationale explaining why this is where is appears in doc
   flow

   JB: priority grouping concern a perception or based on feedback;
   putting priorities on level by priority, forces more discussion to
   happen on most essential parts of need be addressed; seen example in
   another GL group where happened

   JR: end-run around issue: make this be a user option - level A that
   user can choose to have UA process keystrokes first

   GJR: didn't we build that into access module?

   JR: UAs don't process this way because user goes to GMail think "i am
   using GMail" not browser x

   GJR: this is similar to the dropped role in ARIA "application"

   JR: can bring to proper priority level by allowing for user control
   (greater and less)

   proposed ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting
   cascade issues, SC and solutions/techniques ??

   JA: browser a platform for applications, good point JR

   q}

   MH: developer's POV: nothing specific to add

   <AllanJ> GJR: was covered in ARIA 1.1 'template ID', perhaps take back
   to PF

   GJR: dropped role is templateid not application

   JA: send to list, GJR

   GJR: implementor support for "templateid" in ARIA, but dropped

   TWO MINUTE WARNING

Wrapping Up

   JA: propose we stop here for now and pick up on list -- getting close
   to nailing this

   JB: one more call could probably make it not only to end of list, but
   also talk about reordering; for 10 through 12 will need to track
   background

   JA: discussion on list is key
   ... proposal needed for 10; 11 needs grammatical fix; 12 ok

   JB: housekeeping: meeting scheduled for 90 minutes; going to give it a
   try; anyone else have problem with 90 minutes starting at 2pm Boston?

   GJR: no

   JB: Jeanne put on agenda scheduling publication of next draft -
   important to satisfy heartbeat req; might be good to do after keyboard
   part is straightened out

   JA: good idea

   JB: talk at next week's meeting

   JA: will be number 1 on agenda; if get kbd section done, good place to
   issue a draft

   JB: some members we haven't heard from who have a lot of interest in
   keyboard; coherent for feedback check with those who have been out of
   touch when have new proposed text
   ... regrets for next week?

   proposed ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting
   cascade issues, SC and proposed solutions/techniques

   jan, are you still on IRC - i didn't capture your last action
   definitively

   proposed ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting
   cascade issues, SC and proposed solutions/techniques

   <scribe> ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting
   cascade issues, SC and proposed solutions/techniques [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action09]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: JA, JB, JS to figure a time & place to discuss a bunch
   of editorial issues (such as whether to "verbify" the success
   criteria) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action04]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for
   redundancy [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action05]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jan - propose rewrite for 4.1.5 and nex 4.1.x [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action07]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting
   cascade issues, SC and proposed solutions/techniques [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action09]

   [NEW] ACTION: jb reply to multiple concerns on SH's suggestion about
   linking literature references from UAWG 2.0 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action02]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeanne - build new streamlined framework for 4.1.* (1 or
   2 sentences for each SC) [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action08]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeanne - propose rewrite for Section 4.1.8 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action06]

   [NEW] ACTION: Judy and Jeanne - plan time and place to discuss cluster
   of editorial issues to get UAAG2 more consistent - address
   verbification of keywords for SCs [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action03]

   [NEW] ACTION: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard shortcuts
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 20:02:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:52:00 GMT