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

Minutes: UAWG telecon 20 Dec. 2012

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:54:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+=z1Wn+P9KTRqFq9ZYetezRdDiB0QsOkXOAaHNPQC8HPyS7eA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
from http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-ua-minutes.html- DRAFT - User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 20 Dec 2012

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-ua-irc
PresentJim_Allan, Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, kford,
markChairjimallan, kellyfordScribekippatch, kimpatch, -kippatch

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/12/20-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. partial
   - Summary of Action


<trackbot> Date: 20 December 2012

<JAllan> new editors draft:

<KimPatch> Jim: end of levels discussion – if you have any more about
levels send to list

<JAllan> close item 1

<KimPatch> Jim: winter break – I propose that we don't meet the next two

<KimPatch> general agreement

<JAllan> close item 2

<JAllan> open item 3

<JAllan> information to come in the new year.

<KimPatch> Jeanne: definition of levels – more on the first of the year

<JAllan> close item 3

<KimPatch> Jim: success criteria, conformance

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2012OctDec/0052.html

<KimPatch> Jim: ARIA role navigation - trying to tease out whether someone
did aria right is difficult

<KimPatch> Jim: these are pretty minor otherwise

<KimPatch> Jeanne: 2.1.3 I recommend we drop that – there are a lot of WC3
documents on compound documents

<JAllan> *ACTION:* jim to do 2.1.1 urls for resources [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-787 - Do 2.1.1 urls for resources [on Jim Allan -
due 2012-12-27].

<KimPatch> Jim: 2.1.3 is no keyboard trap, so it has to do with passing off
the keyboard focus inside a compound document, which was a big thing a
couple or three years ago. Maybe our examples are good enough. This is
really more of the application of the keyboard trap in flash or the
keyboard trap and some other embedded application which is essentially what
SVG is and all the rest of that. So I would...

<KimPatch> ...be okay with removing it.

<KimPatch> no objections to removing related resource for 213

<KimPatch> Jim: 4.1.2 2.5.3 and issue 87 which are all related to aria

<KimPatch> Jim: it's a AAA and this would be being able to configure
landmark navigation and roles. We could add a resource, but want to avoid
getting into a rats nest.

<KimPatch> Jim: 2.5.1 is location and hierarchy, we have already done that.
The issue is navigate by element and semantic role.

<KimPatch> Jeanne: recommend we close it

<KimPatch> general agreement

<KimPatch> Greg: so we have a definition of structural and operable

<KimPatch> Greg: there does not seem to be a definition – but it's only
used in summaries

<KimPatch> Jim: we have important structural elements

<KimPatch> Greg: structural elements is in one note and one SC, and is not

<KimPatch> Jim: important elements is defined

<KimPatch> Greg: structural elements as mentioned in the glossary under
outline view

<KimPatch> Greg: the term structure is used in the note with important
structural elements, but the word structural there. It was changed in a
note from 191 from important structural elements two important elements.
The other case 252 where only in the title of the SC, and that's okay – it
looks like we don't need to define it there, already in SC

<KimPatch> Greg: 191 changing to important in the note, 252 we can just
leave it

<KimPatch> Jim: 253 can be marked as done

<KimPatch> Greg: however I do know that the term structural navigation is
used – closest thing in the glossary is structural navigation command –
that's probably okay

<KimPatch> Jim: I think we are good

<KimPatch> Greg: so we can close action 500

<JAllan> close action-500

<trackbot> ACTION-500 Kim And Greg to draft definition of Structural and
Operable elements closed

<JAllan> close action-545

<trackbot> ACTION-545 SC and EIR for 2.5.1 Provide structural navigation *
[NEW]* closed

<JAllan> close item 4

<JAllan> open item 5
partial conformance

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2012OctDec/0054.html

<KimPatch> Jan: action to propose a type of partial conformance for mobile

<KimPatch> Jan: example, airline app on your phone and it uses the whole
browser window to display only the current state of your flight, the name
of the flight where it's from and if it's running late and by how long –
something like that. Even though it is a full browser window potentially it
knows where it's receiving data from – but basically it's not getting just
any old image from the web.the...

<KimPatch> ...proposal was at a partial UN 2.0 conformance level

<Jan> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Constrained Content (Level A, AA, or

<Jan> ---

<Jan> This conformance option may be selected when the user agent is
deployed such that it can only be used to display a tightly constrained set
of content (e.g. as part of a mobile app that only displays text messages).
The conformance claim must list those success criteria which are judged not
applicable due to the nature of the constrained content.

<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to add "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility"
to the bibliography. [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-788 - Add "Evaluating Web Sites for
Accessibility" to the bibliography. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2012-12-27].

<KimPatch> Jan: in theory this is a browser that could display time-based
but it never will –because of the content we don't have to make this

<KimPatch> Greg: where would this be in the conformance section

<KimPatch> Jan: would say is claiming partial conformance to UAAG, and
claiming partial conformance based on constrained content

<KimPatch> Jan: right now there's no section but in ATAG you can see how
they are done

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-ATAG20-20120924/#conf-levels

<KimPatch> Jan: the intro text is out of date – two types of levels,
regular and partial

<KimPatch> Jan: regular, 3 A levels, then two types of partial.

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial

<KimPatch> Jan: we got this from WCAG – here's how they do it

<KimPatch> Greg: ATAG has levels, WCAG has requirements

<KimPatch> Jan: H3– at the same level. The point is it's just a modifier,
it is in full conformance, we know it's not, and here's the reason. It
could be because some of the content is third-party content or the language

<KimPatch> Jan: could say we are not a general content provider – it's
constrained and constrained in these ways

<KimPatch> Jim: works for the American airline app example – this will do a
fine job

<KimPatch> Jim: list of the things they are complying with a list of the
things they aren't complying with:

<KimPatch> Greg: they could use the same form, but simply fill in NA with

<KimPatch> Greg: if they are making a claim at all, which is optional. But
if the claim is there do they have to list every SC?

<KimPatch> Greg: #7 says to state whether conforms. So how is this
different – requires to state, when you read through section 7 you discover
that half of them are NAs

<Greg> That is, section 7 in a conformance claim requires listing for every
SC pass, fail, or N/A and why.

<KimPatch> Jan: the browser component would not be a very good
implementation of UAAG if it were by itself – for example doesn't have
highlighting options for active keyboard focus, recognize enabled input
elements were recently visited links – but that's okay because it knows
that the only text that's going to come through and be displays is flight

<Greg> Thus if it knows from constrained input content that there will be
no images, then every SC involving images can already be marked N/A with
explanation of "because of constrained input set does not include images".

<JAllan> scribe: kippatch

<JAllan> scribe: kimpatch

Jan: if the web browser is going to display content that includes whatever
those classes should be highlighted – you can just offload that entire
scenario to a special type of conformance – this is not a great example
because it doesn't do this stuff, but it's such constrained input that can
get away with it

Greg: but can they already get away with it under the current method – in
the list of SC's they would say NA because the constrained input does not

Jan: that becomes a testing question – I don't think it was clear before
... it's kind of an edge case that needed to be stated

Greg: I'm not disagreeing necessarily, just trying to work out the
... I can understand that the high level wanting them to identify that it's
a different kind of case, but in practice I wouldn't want to let them out
of section 7 where they list every SC and say yes no or N/A – so that I
don't think should change

Jan: I agree – just want to make sure there's a meaningful distinction
between a tool that – example a tool that does not support video – it can
say not applicable to anything that has to do with video. and then this
other browser complement, HTML 5 browser complement which is being used in
this particular situation where it's text. I agree with you it doesn't
change it all going...
... through the...
... whole document and saying yes no N/A

Greg: if were still going to do all the steps in the conformance claim
including listing everything yes pass fail or NA, but a at a high level you
want to call it out, how manyNAs does it take to make it have to be called
... do many user agents have a least one NA?

Jan: this is a very different type of browser than Internet Explorer or a
Firefox where you can browse anywhere on the web

Jeanne: one of the other use cases that we have been talking about for
partial conformance was the American Airlines app – where success criteria
– conformance is coming from the platform level but it might not work on a
different platform. So the American Airlines app on iOS might meet the
success criteria because of features of iOS and it might not need it on the
android platform or vice...
... versa. I believe that was one of our use cases

Jan: that's handled in the next type of partial – there are three types

Jim: must listen to all of Jan's levels and then come back and see how we
can resolve Greg's issues

Jan: reading second one

<JAllan> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - User Agent Component (Level A, AA,
or AAA)

<JAllan> ---

<JAllan> This conformance option may be selected when a user agent would
require additional user agent functionality in order to conform as a
complete user agent. This option may be used for components with very
limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g.
a user agent that only lacks mouseless browsing).

<JAllan> The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above
except that, for any "no" answers, the user agent must not prevent the
success criteria from being met by another user agent component as part of
a complete user agent system.

<JAllan> Note: User agents would not be able to meet partial conformance if
they prevent additional user agent components from meeting the failed
success criteria (e.g., for security reasons).

<JAllan> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations (Level A, AA,
or AAA)

<JAllan> ---

<JAllan> This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is
unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic
limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility
service). The conformance should explain what platform features are missing.

Jan: this is so a browser can say I don't do mouseless browsing, but some
other plug-in could

Jim: so you could say I need the extension in order to do full compliance
... so you can say I meet this one success criteria and nothing else

Jan: yes, important because if the company says we don't want to step on
the toes of the checking company… this lets everybody do it they do and do
no harm to others
... you can let a small company do only their part. You can let another
company say we do everything but we don't do mouseless browsing
... large companies don't want to have to rely on small companies for

Greg: in terms of partial compliance – partial implementation user agent
component – so in that case Firefox would claim partial compliance as a
user agent component

Jan: yes it is a loophole, but if they are claiming user agent partial
conformance and all the sudden there in some RFP and Microsoft comes in and
says actually were doing a full conformance claim – either because they
built all the stuff natively or maybe they did with the last-minute agree
to rely on a secondary vendor, then it looks better, they have the full
story to tell

Greg: assuming mouseless browsing is AA, they can't claim AA level?

Jan: they are free to claim a bundle – it's just that in the atag world we
ran into strong – we don't want to

Greg: Where do they claim add-ons as a component?

Jan: it's something that is going to have to be built into the conformance

<Greg> In the section titled "Required Components of an UAAG 2.0
Conformance Claim" we need to add an additional item where the claimant
identifies first, or third party components that are required to meet some
of the SC requirements.

<Greg> For example, Firefox would list the Mouseless Browsing extension.

<Jan> Analagous ATAG2 wording: "Note: If the authoring tool is a collection
of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor, and a
validation tool), then information must be provided separately for each
component, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole."

Greg: ATAG wording doesn't really make it clear that some of them might be
third-party components

Jan: we've left that unstated – what if the mouseless browsing people wrote
something about themselves in the context of Firefox. It's allowed, but
Firefox might not like it so we dialed it down because of that concern.

Jim: maybe leave them in and see if anybody complains

Jeanne: different situation, vendor dominated versus accessibility

<JAllan> greg: may need use cases for each of these

<JAllan> will take this up at the next meeting.

<JAllan> scribe: -kippatch
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to add "Evaluating Web
Sites for Accessibility" to the bibliography. [recorded in
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jim to do 2.1.1 urls for resources [recorded in

[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, 20 December 2012 19:54:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:42 UTC