W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2011

Minutes: Jan 13, 2011

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:32:15 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOy7k7Wqs7gwFV7EP0Mup=JJHLwR9dJ8mT0oyD@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
13 Jan 2011

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-irc
Attendees

Present
    Jim_Allan, Greg, sharper, Jan, Simon, KimPatch, Mark
Regrets
    KFord, JSpellman
Chair
    JimAllan
Scribe
    jallan

Contents

    * Topics
         1. schedule F2F and/or video conference
         2. survey items http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20110111/results
         3. ACTION-480 - Rewrite 3.3.2 to mirror ATAG
         4. from HTML-A11Y UA behavior for missing content
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
    * Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2011

<sharper> I'm here - i can't hear you guys either

<sharper> let me reconnect

<Jan> Simon - want to connect via Skype?

<sharper> I'm here

<sharper> no

<sharper> not muted\

<sharper> let me see
schedule F2F and/or video conference

We could meet during CSUN

MH -

JR -1

GL +1

SH _1

Js and JA +1

schedule longer telecons, or 2 day marathons.

JR: 3 hour telecons were helpful for ATAG

MH: 3 or 4 hour calls would be better

SH: 3 + hours ok, with enough scheduling.

gl: not sure if video is so useful.

JR: skype has video conferencing 7 days free.
survey items http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20110111/results

<scribe> scribe: jallan

scribenic: jallan

rewriting 3.3.4.

gl: comment: Just an aside, would this mean that the accessibility
section of a product's documentation needs to list the fact that it
complies with standards for HTML, CSS, SVG, etc.? Of course, no user
agent actually does fully comply with all those standards, so do we
expect them to say they "substantially" comply with or implement them?

<Greg> Relevant SC: 5.4.1 (former 1.4.1) Follow Specifications: Render
content according to the technology specification, except where it
would actually harm overall accessibility. (Level A)

discussion of GL comment.

jr: only applies to things that meet the requirements of UAAG 2
... IER - or applicability note. when we talk about supporting a
technology it means the parts of the technology we support

<Greg> Jan discussing: 5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features:
Implement and cite in the conformance claim the accessibility features
of content and platform technology specifications. Accessibility
features are those that are either (Level A) : * identified as such in
the specification or * allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.

JR 2 kinds of accessibility features - alt text 5.3.1

<Jan> 5.3.1 (former 1.3.1) Accessibility Features: Implement and cite
in the conformance claim the accessibility features of content and
platform technology specifications. Accessibility features are those
that are either (Level A):

<Jan> * identified as such in the specification or

<Jan> * allow authors to satisfy a requirement of WCAG.

scribe: accessibility of the UA, a different SC

jr: UA must explain how its features work, e.g. how it indicates longdesc

3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a dedicated section of the
documentation which presents a centralized view of all features of the
user agent necessary to meet the requirements of this document.

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to add 3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a
dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized of
all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-484 - Add 3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a
dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized of
all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [on Jeanne Spellman - due
2011-01-20].
ACTION-480 - Rewrite 3.3.2 to mirror ATAG

<Greg> The phrase "this document" should be changed to "User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC.

<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to replace "this document" with "User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Replace "this document" with "User
Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in
all SC. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2011-01-20].

discussion intent for 3.3.2

jr: sees SC as very user level. the last paragraph should be more general

gl: perhaps explain how the user can get the most accessibility out of the UA.

jr: good idea.

kp: there should be some basic instructions, that helps users use the product.

gl: goal of this sc is to provide the user with the information they
need to accessibly use the UA.

<Greg> We want to explain that and why user agent documentation needs
to explain how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features.

<scribe> ACTION: jim to rewrite 3.3.2 to expand on 'documented' to
include- how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Rewrite 3.3.2 to expand on
'documented' to include- how users find, adjust, and use accessibility
features [on Jim Allan - due 2011-01-20].

<Greg> Do we want to require/recommend that user agent documentation
should include what portions of standards (e.g. HTML, CSS) are not
supported? If so, does that fit into this SC or into a new SC?
(Currently it's explicitly mentioned only in the final paragraph of
the Intent.)

<Greg> A concrete example is a user who wants to install a
user-supplied stylesheet that displays alt text after each image. If a
browser does not support generated content in this way, because that's
one of the small bits of the CSS standard which it does not fully
implement, should the user be able to figure that out from product
documentation (included with or on its web site), rather than spend...

<Greg> ...days trying to experiment and bang their head against the
wall trying to figure out why it's not working.

jr: makes sense. from a conformance perspective, this is informative.

this is a level A requirement, features are documents. if we want
things specifically documented, then it needs to be in the SC

<Greg> Jan suggests that requiring documentation of the details of
what portions of technology specs are supported should be lower
priority, such as AA or AAA.

KP: +1

GL: +1, but not a deal breaker

MH: +1

Sh: +1

JR: +1

JA: +1

<scribe> ACTION: Greg to write proposal requiring documentation of the
details of what portions of technology specs are supported should be
lower priority, such as AA or AAA. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-487 - Write proposal requiring documentation
of the details of what portions of technology specs are supported
should be lower priority, such as AA or AAA. [on Greg Lowney - due
2011-01-20].
from HTML-A11Y UA behavior for missing content
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-html-a11y-minutes.html

scenario: video is opened, it has captions, but they don't work, what
should UA do, inform user

GL: should be AA or AAA

JR: where does this end, what if wai-aria-describe-by, but no target,
does user get informed

should UA inform user that captions that were supposed to play are not
available?

KP: yes,

GL: +/-

MH: +/- with lean on yes

SH: -, agree with JR, where will it end

JR: -

<Greg> I wouldn't want to be prescriptive of HOW the message is
presented. And I'm not sure a requirement on error messages is needed,
as I don't see a major difference between a video with no captions and
a video with missing captions. I don't think any user agent won't play
the video just because captions can't be found, but OK with explicitly
requiring it if people want to.

JR: low priority.

kp: sees a user, needs captions, but they have a setting wrong.

jr: need to complain to provider.

kp: user needs to know that captions are provided but are broken.

<Greg> Another equivalent scenario, like Jan's on described-by, would
be a web page that includes a remote image; if the remote image was
unavailable, would you require that the user agent put some
placeholder, rather than allowing it to just omit the missing image
altogether? Sure, we might consider showing a placeholder to be better
design, but is it important enough to warrant a success criterion?

<Greg> Any SC addressing this issue for captions would also apply to
audio description. Would it be generalized to any form of alternative
content?

<mhakkinen> +1 to gl
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Greg to write proposal requiring documentation of the
details of what portions of technology specs are supported should be
lower priority, such as AA or AAA. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to add 3.3.4 Centralized View: There is a
dedicated section of the documentation which presents a centralized of
all features of the user agent necessary to meet the requirements of
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to replace "this document" with "User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (or possibly just "UAAG 2.0") in all SC.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jim to rewrite 3.3.2 to expand on 'documented' to
include- how users find, adjust, and use accessibility features
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/13-ua-minutes.html#action03]


-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster

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
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 19:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 19:32:46 GMT