W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2012

minutes: UAWG 5 July 2012

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:39:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+=z1Wk7bhis_S+S57bY4aK5Y6c59HkXxtWB728WHrX1K9_CfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>


User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

05 Jul 2012

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2012/07/05-ua-irc


jim, mark, greg, Jamie_(intern), jeanne
kelly, jan

2.11.7 definition of "relative time units" (Action-699, Action-644)
2.11.11 scale and position of caption track (Action-692) see proposal
Review GL 5, approve Jeanne's rework/renumbering/re-etc.
discussion of action-701
Summary of Action Items
<trackbot> Date: 05 July 2012
Kim, Greg)
2.11.7 definition of "relative time units" (Action-699, Action-644)

mark still working on it.
2.11.11 scale and position of caption track (Action-692) see proposal

pkgadd -d http://get.opencsw.org/now
discussion of operable vs perceivable
mh: here does 500% come from in Jan's proposal
discussion of 200% from wcag
gl: leaning toward GL1
js: +1
mh: +1
ja: +1
<scribe> scribe: jallan
sh: go with group.
ja: use mark or Jan?
gl: stem too long on both of them
... need to add caption to definition of "rendered text" and or "text"
discussion of specificity of the proposals.
gl: if the captions are already outside then the browser does not have
to do anything.
<mhakkinen> 1.1.3 Scale and position visual alternative content: The
user can scale and position alternative visual content, for instance
media tracks can be positioned and scaled independent of the base
video or audio player presentation. (Level AAA)
gl: may need to add 'visual alternative content' to the glossary
mh: would like to keep the original proposal
ja: scaling caption covered in 1.8.6
gl: jan's proposal would scale captions independently of the other text.
... would be better to keep it general.
mark with re-propose to the list as 1.1.3
Review GL 5, approve Jeanne's rework/renumbering/re-etc.

ja: need to rework the TOC
js: reviews what was done, and editors comment
... mostly merged 5.2.x and 5.3.x into 5.1.x
sh: 5.1.4 do we really need it.
ja: most browers already do this.
gl: what about IOS and Flash. just puts a place holder
... don't have to be able to run it, just save it.
mh: but in IOS, there is no 3rd party way to run flash. we need an out
for when a technology is not supported
ja: you just save it and move it to a platform that can play it
gl: if they don't handle it well for flash, what else will they break
or not support.
the user need to be able to do something with the content
gl: flash is just one example.
<Greg> Here's the current Intent and Example for 5.1.4:
<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 5.1.4:
<Greg> Users who have disabilities may have fewer options in terms of
how they access the information. Information is made available in a
variety of ways on the Internet, and at times a specific format may be
the only way in which information is available. If the user agent
cannot render that format it should let the user access that content
through alternate means, such as invoking a third-party...
<Greg> ...renderer or saving the file to the user's hard drive.
<Greg> Examples of Success Criterion 5.1.4 :
<Greg> Tracy has low vision and finds it much more convenient to
access her bank statement electronically than on paper, even though
the electronic version is in a TIFF image, a format that her browser
cannot render. In this case, the browser lets her save the image to
her hard drive so she can open it in another program.
<sharper> GL: SH proposed that 5.1.4 was not requrired
<sharper> GL: eg of why is because the iOS browser doesn't handle
flash - therefore failing
<sharper> GL: OK to include somethings that some browser will fail
<sharper> ALL; general discussion around this problem and the
interpretation of 'applicable specifications and conventions'
<scribe> scribe: jallan
sh: apple's out is that they don't support or implement X, and it is
in their spec for the platform so it meets 5.1.4
discussing hypothetical cases and relations to 5.1.3 and 5.1.2
<sharper> SH: actually I think 5.1.4 is redundant
ja: reviewing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2011May/0000.html
about 5.3
mh: have submitter review changes to the document.
gl: we use 'accessibility features' a lot. but only one in an SC so we
don't need to define it.
discussion of action-701

Write intent for 5.3.1 to address browser bugs effecting accessibility
ja: proposes closing the action. no definitive list. failing SC is a browser bug
... +1
js: +1
<Greg> Presumably that's re the current 5.1.2 Implement accessibility
features of content specs (was 5.3.1)?
mh: propose AAA feature, flag an accessibility problem to browser
developer or author, that would send relevant information to the UA
sh: IBM has something like this for content
js: sounds like UAAG-next
getting examples from chrome, firefox, etc.
group agreed to close action-701
<jeanne> Resolved: Close action-701
s/ -d http:"/""/"get.opencsw.org"/"now/
Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

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, 5 July 2012 18:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 July 2012 18:40:22 GMT