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

Minutes for User Agent Teleconference for 17 July 2008

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:43:12 -0400
Message-ID: <487FA0D0.3090406@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Minutes:

http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html

Actions:

ACTION: JS to Save the potential rationales written by SH
ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG
ACTION: KF to Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together
ACTION: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the checkpoints.

Full Text:

<KFord> but actually if there should be even this brief content that's 
not there, just kind of boilplate text.

<KFord> Love all the different permission issues with technology.

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

<Alan> testing...

<scribe> Scribe: Jan

Action item review: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard shortcuts
JA: Simon did send

JB: I had action to reply but haven't yet
... First thanks for them
... One thought...Jim reminded us when he got back that 4.1.1 to 4.1.12 
are actually success criteria
... In other docs we havne't put rationales for this lvel...in other 
docs this went in "understanding" docs
... But at moment that's noit on our committed deliverables list
... Another concern is that while this is really good starter text but 
would need more peoples' time to polish
... So we are kind of reluctant to take on this additional work...
... Also you suggested litterature references....
... Just a couple of concerns...1. external link persistence is an issue 
from a technical report (TR)....
... also an ISO JTC group I was on tried this a few years back and had 
trouble with it
... Am I clear?

SH: Only thing I thought - sent an Email - with re: rationale: I'm happy 
to go along with it...but I worry that we will be asking developers to 
do things and tonot have rationale might hinder take up of rules
... But I understand time constraints
... Benefits as well

JB: We did agree with that...esp. wrt UAAG1 not getting as much uptake
... Concern was actually that rationales might not be consistent. Some 
are benefit, some are barrier....our experience in other groups is 
almost to wqrite these by formula
... And with regard to links, it should be as concise as possible
... Anyhow there was pretty stong support in last mtg of having these 
avaiable but there was just concern about scope.
... Also reminder that group needs to publish on heartbeat schedule

SH: I'm fine to go along

JB: Other people ok?
... We could revisit it later?
... We do specifically want to save the text for later use

JA: Agree that saving text is a great idea

<scribe> ACTION: JS to Save the potential rationales written by SH 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<jeanne> ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]

:)

AC: We should think about best formula for writing these

JB: Maybe we can select several different guidelines and then try the 
various formats...barriers, benefits, etc.

<jeanne> ACTION:JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action03]

JB: I might lean towards "barrier-reduction" rather than "make it nice"
... Bunch of considerations

JA, JB, JS to figure a time & place to discuss a bunch of editorial
Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for redundancy ???
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0036.html

JA: We want to keep 4.1.1 unchanged, remove 4.1.7 and reword 4.1.6
... Decide now?

JB: OK if will be short discussion?

KF: "Processed content" defined?

JR: Ties into whole chrome/content display discussion

Jan - propose rewrite for 4.1.5 and next 4.1.x
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0018.html

JA: will come back to this

Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting cascade issues...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0024.html

<jeanne> JR: Action item on precedence of keyboard processing. JR thinks 
we can simplify by having one SC (we previously had 2)

<jeanne> ... that states the preferred order.

JA: Let's flag for follow-up

KF: I have some concerns

Jeanne - build new streamlined framework for 4.1.*
JS: Yes I did

Jeanne - propose rewrite for Section 4.1.8
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080714.html

JS: Will take some discussion as well

JA: Then...
... Would like to hold off on discussing"Schedule for publication of 
next draft."
... Let's take up 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7

Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for redundancy ???
<AllanJ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008JulSep/0036.html

<AllanJ> www.w3.org/tr/uaag2

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080714.html

JB: Reads: 4.1.1 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 mouse input or other input methods in addition 
to keyboard operation.

JA: So as part of the review I did with JR, we decided this is ok

JB: THink "provisionally OK" should be a category
... Provisionally yes

KF: Provisionally yes

JA: OK

JR, SH, JS: Provisionally yes

AC: COuld we simplify?

JB: I agree

KF: I think we drill to far down quickly....I can see lots of places 
where simplification needed

JB: Good point

AC: OK

JA: OK we can wordsmith after 4.1

JB: Next is to remove: 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.

OOPS

JA: Something different
... Clarifies that we want to remove 4.1.7 and rewording 4.1.6

KF: So sentence in 4.1.1 pretty abstract...
... So supplemental info...
... I would try to move stuff in 4.1.7 up into 4.1.1

AC: Can't agree
... This is actually touching on something interesting....conventions
... Reversability important

KF: Should merge first then word smith down

http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#principle-follow-specs

<AllanJ> JR: there is another guideline 1.1, observe operating 
environment conventions

<AllanJ> ... platform, mobile phone, etc.

KF: 4.1.1 needs a semblance of an example

JB: Gets back into SH's need for rationales
... I actually think this may be the worst section of the doc
... In terms of trying to sort things out
... I've never seen a really good capture of keyboard
... May be that we need rationles for this section

KF: 4.1.1 says all functionality can be operated from keyboard...
... 4.1.7 is what really means by all

AC: It's a clarification...a positive example to go with negative one....

The user can, through keyboard input alone, navigate to and operate all 
of the functions included in the user interface (e.g., navigating and 
selecting content within views, operating the user interface "chrome", 
installing and configuring the user agent, and accessing documentation), 
except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the 
path of the user's movement and not...

scribe: just the endpoints (e.g. freeform drawing).

@@(e.g., navigating and selecting content within views, operating the 
user interface "chrome", installing and configuring the user agent, and 
accessing documentation)@@

All functionality can be operated via the keyboard @@(e.g., navigating 
and selecting content within views, operating the user interface 
"chrome", installing and configuring the user agent, and accessing 
documentation)@@

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 mouse input or other input 
methods in addition to keyboard operation.

JB: Don't like Chrome

JR: Can say controls or something

<Judy> judy: not simply that i don't like it; i note that we're not 
using it consistently nor correctly and it seems to add to the jargon 
barrier not only for non-developer audiences but even for some developer 
audiences.

JR: As an aside we have reworded 4.1.1 a lot...very terse....and almost 
back where we started

that was JA

JA: We're spinning wheels

KF: But sometimes this is healthy because helps find comfort level

JA: Other conflict is how terse to make things
... Worry about being too prescriptive then too terse

JB: Well I'm having a concern that last time we didn't even get to the 
end of 4.1.12.\
... So agenda....we've gone through and are now returning

JA: I wan't here last week, not sure what we got through

JB: I do not believe we made it through with detailed discussion

JS: How much change to 4.1.11 and 4.1.12? JS?

that was JB

JS: No change by me except small grammar fix

JA: So we were thrashing on 4.1.1...

<scribe> ACTION: KF to Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<KFord> Note to kfored, look at older wording from log here.

JA: Next part is rewording of 4.1.6
... 4.1.6 was about standard text conventions
... Our proposed wording is: 4.1.6 Caret Navigation: The user can use 
the keyboard to navigate to and

select characters in any text in the processed content.

KF: 2 peices of general feedback...this would only be of viewport to be 
more clear
... And defining "processed content"

<AllanJ> JR: this is exactly the reason we need the separation between 
chrome and content.

JR: THis is exactly why we need chrome/content display split

<AllanJ> JR. The user can use the keyboard to navigate to and

<AllanJ> select characters any text in the xxx (viewport, content 
display, processed content,

<AllanJ> etc.)

JB: Would this split 4.1?

JR: No we just need to be clear

JS: Big issue...leaning towards dividing adifferent way...into who's 
responsible for developing it

KF: Maybe I"m just showing my bias....browser is at least two things 
"chrome" and other is "web content"....and I want our document it 
reflect that
... So want all UA's to implement caret browsing?

JA: Right

JB: How is this different than 4.1.1?

JA: Applies to user interface

JB: I think split only applies to some checkpoints
... If 4.1.1 and 4.1.6 are parallel,,,maybe we need to make that very clear
... So they can't be mistaken for smae thing

Maybe 4.1.6 needs to come up to the top

AC: Hard to imagine not drawing really clear distinction between user 
interface and content...some SC's can be collapsed togther...
... But I think we should actually repeat wording in UI vs. content display

JS: But as more apps come on line we are backing ourself into corner 
with this distniction

<AllanJ> JR: I don't agree.

<AllanJ> ... Al G. made a comment. on 7/11 about this issue

<AllanJ> ... imagine, viewer with video running using a webbased 
external viewer SMIL, etc.

<AllanJ> ... there are things that are different from developer content 
(player) and author content (actual movie with caption)

<AllanJ> ... the player has a different set of criteria (keyboard 
accessibility, accessible help)

<AllanJ> ... the movie must follow WCAG.

<AllanJ> ... can't tell from the tags, could all be html, even in the 
chrome could be html

KF: Call it what you will...but caret browsing is going to apply to web 
content...
... Kind of do that with processed content
... In web page if I write "File" I want to select that, but dowbt need 
to select "File" in menu
... Very different from UI
... Explicit aims trying to acheive need to be clear

JA: As necessary...
... Thinking back to comment earlier, Flash in web page, does user agent 
need to provide caret browsing...
... Gives examples of embedded user agents

KF: I don't disagree..we need to very explicit

JB: Process comment....feel like I'm getting picture of why we are going 
in circles....
... We don't have well developed understanding of the need.
... Trying to discuss on level of wording...without shared understanding
... People need to the group can be left out when shared understanding 
is not explicit
... Maybe between now and next week, several people can attempt to write 
rationales
... Reaction?

<AllanJ> JR: will be part of group

JR: I would join that group.

JA: Me too

SH: As a newbie everything seems to come back to 4.1.1 which is very 
comprhensive
... Also 4.1.5, 4.6., 4.1.7, .11 and .12 are subclasses of 4.1.1

JB: Interesting observations
... THis was a very tough part of TEITAC as well
... I'm still not satisfied with what we have
... Maybe 4 or 5 essential things...
... So we are almost out of time

JS: Would like to join

JA: Somewhere along the way principles have been lost

KF: I'd be willing to help too

<scribe> ACTION: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the 
checkpoints. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action05]

KF: Have to go

JA: Next week we'll do the next draft schedule first

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JR, JA, JS, KF: Write rationales for all of the 
checkpoints. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to Save the potential rationales written by SH 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JS will set up tracking system for UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: KF to Look at how 4.1.1 and 4.1.7 might fit together 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action04]




Jim Allan wrote:
> Chair: Judy Brewer & Jim Allan
> Date: Thursday, 17 July 2008
> Time: 2:00-3:30 pm Boston Local Time, USA (19:00-20:00 UTC/GMT)
> Call-in: Zakim bridge at: +1-617-761-6200, code 82941# for UK use
> 44-117-370-6152
> IRC: sever: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #ua.
> 
> Note extended time. The call will be 90 minutes long.
> Agenda:
> 
> 1. Regrets, agenda requests, comments?
> 
> 2. Review of Action Items:
> ACTION: SH draft new rationale text for 4.1 keyboard shortcuts
> ACTION: JA, JB, JS to figure a time & place to discuss a bunch of editorial
> issues (such as whether to "verbify" the success criteria 
> ACTION: Jan & Jim - review 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 4.1.7 for redundancy ??? 
> ACTION: Jan - propose rewrite for 4.1.5 and next 4.1.x 
> ACTION: Jan - start discussion on UA list about scripting cascade issues, SC
> and proposed solutions/techniques 
> ACTION: jb reply to multiple concerns on SH's suggestion about linking
> literature references from UAWG 2.0 
> ACTION: Jeanne - build new streamlined framework for 4.1.* 
> ACTION: Jeanne - propose rewrite for Section 4.1.8 
> 
> Reference wording for above: please see Jeanne's updated keyboard proposal
> document:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/keyboardProposals20080714.html
> 
> 
> 3. Schedule for publication of next draft.
> 
> Jim Allan, Webmaster & Statewide Technical Support Specialist
> Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
> 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
> voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
> "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:41:46 GMT

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