W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2013

Minutes: UAWG telecon 31 Jan 2013

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:19 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+=z1W=70pKrV9RiAtk06+X7DWrH1nuUTc4MBxMb8XpNxye7-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
from http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-minutes.htmlUser Agent Accessibility
Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 31 Jan 2013

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-irc
PresentJim_Allan, Jan, EricHansen, KellyFord, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch,
sharper, kfordRegretsJeanneChairJimAllan, KellyFordScribekford

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. conformance use cases for conformance scenarios (extensions,
      mobile apps, etc)<http://www.w3.org/2013/01/31-ua-minutes.html#item01>
   - Summary of Action


<trackbot> Date: 31 January 2013

<allanj> new permanant links for the working drafts (no more dates!)

<allanj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/

<allanj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20/



http://www.w3.org/2013/01/22-ua-minutes.html - new thoughts


Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaste

<sharper> anyone having zakim problems

<sharper> it says 82941# is not valid

<allanj> all seems fine on this end. Jeanne is not available to fix.

<sharper> OK so not happening on viop

<allanj> that is the number I used

<allanj> Latest editor's draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/ it will
always be the latest version.

<scribe> scribe: kford

<scribe> Chair: Jim_allan_Kelly Ford

JA: Just a few notes

<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0023.htmlfrom
the A!!y HTML5 Taskforce

JA: Will get to EH comments next week. Three bugs from HTML task force I
think we can close.

JA goes over bugs.

JA will write up comments and send to group and HTML5 task force

KP: We are going to be working on more examples next Friday 2/8 starting at
9A eastern

<allanj> Indie UI needs a review

<allanj> any comments welcome
conformance use cases for conformance scenarios (extensions, mobile apps,

<allanj> UAAG 10 conformance

JA going over history of discussion here.

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html

<Jan> (GL's email)

<allanj> *NA:* Not Applicable:

<allanj> 1. *NA-Component:* not applicable to the limited functionality
provided by this user agent component, plug-in, or extension (e.g. SC
relating to rendering content would not apply to a browser extension that
adds additional menu commands but does not itself render any content)

<allanj> 2. *NA-Input:* not applicable due to a constrained input set (e.g.
an application that reads flight data in XML format from a corporate
server, or a help system that only displays HTML files included with the

<allanj> 3. *NA-Platform:* not applicable due constraints of the platform
(e.g. color handling when the browser is run on a monochrome device, audio
handling on a silent device, video handling on a interactive voice response
browser, or interprocess communication on an operating system that does not
support multitasking)

<allanj> 4. *NA-Desgn:* not applicable due to intentionally limited output
modalities (e.g. video handling in a browser that only does audio output
even though the platform might support video)

<Greg> And there may be other acceptable reasons for a N/A answer, but they
must be chosen from a limited set of allowable rationales.

Group continuing to talk about conformance, sorting out how to handle
things that the user agent doesn't recognize.

JAN talks about some techniques in ATAG that basically you are only
responsible for what you can control i.e. if you don't recognize it you are
not able to control.

<allanj> *ACTION:* Jim to review 'recognized' in SC to make a top level
statement similar to device independence at the beginning of the document -
perhaps an applicability note. [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Review 'recognized' in SC to make a top
level statement similar to device independence at the beginning of the
document - perhaps an applicability note. [on Jim Allan - due 2013-02-07].

<Jan> Example of ATAG 2.0 conformance applicability note:

<Greg> Note that it's important to define recognized, whether it's in the
Conformance section or each SC, to ensure it can't just be developer choice
not to recognize something that technically they could recognize.

<allanj> what if the UA does not comply with an SC, what do they say...

<allanj> from greg: *NC:* Not Compliant:

<allanj> 1. *NC-Potential:* not compliant but in theory a third party could
make it compliant using documented and supported techniques (e.g. the
product's extension architecture readily allows adding the required
feature; this is also allowed if the source is made available and the
claimant believes it could be modified to add compliance with less than one
person-week of effort, thus giving...

<allanj> ...incentive for open source

<allanj> 2. *NC-Unsupported:* may be compliant but not using documented and
supported techniques

<allanj> 3. *NC-Impossible:* not compliant even with undocumented and
unsupported techniques

KP: Could you say compliant as one thing or say I'm compliant if you add
other pieces.
... Or say I'm not compliant because of x.

JAN talks about cases where you don't want to name a specific extension

JA: Extensions might also go away

EH: We have a choice about how much effort to put into full conformance
versus partial.
... My guess is that if we get full right maybe the partial will fall into

<allanj> you can make a conformance claim of UA versionx, with extension
foo and fubb. when a new version is out a new conformance claim is necessary

KP: If we require compliance with an extension we should have a video
example to see how it works.

<allanj> discussion of percentages.

<allanj> kf: percentages make it hard and complex when factoring in
easy/complex SCs

JA: Seems like we have agreement on compliance as follows:

<Greg> My suggestion for telling them to include the percentage of SC for
each level that they comply with, is not to substitute for what we have now
("100% of Level A" and the like) but merely to add some additional
information that may be useful to the reader.

1. these are the SC I comply with.

2. These are the ones that are not applicable.

3. These are the ones I don't comply with.

<allanj> eric brings up

More discussion about extensions and what kind of conformance claims they
can submit.

GL: I want to have a small conformacne claim for my extension because it
only does this one thing. I don't have the ability to test it with all of a

<allanj> s/conformancne/conformance

<Greg> That is, I don't have the resources to *test* the entire browser
that hosts my extension, in order to submit a conformance claim for the
combination of it plus my extension.

More discussion of user agents and what they consist of.

<allanj> kf: what do we need to do to make a resolution.

Group has more discussion around user agents, such as those embeded as part
of web pages.

<Greg> Examples of web-based user agents: Google Translate, and Google's
"Quick View" of PDFs on the web. In both cases, all the UI is presented as
HTML for the user's web browser to render.

<allanj> Web-base UA seems an edge case. if we are working this hard to
even define it, perhaps we should eliminate it.

More talk about user agents.

<allanj> web-based text editors. written in JS but rendered by the UA.
xStandard, ckEditor.

Emphasizing web based user agents.

<allanj> this could also be canvas.

<sharper> xforms

<sharper> c9.io

<Greg> Another example of a web-based authoring tool/user agent is

<sharper> https://c9.io/

<allanj> c9.io is an IDE for writing Javascript.

<allanj> for next week

<allanj> extended telecon

<allanj> eric comments

<allanj> conformance

<allanj> a11y taskforce bugs

<allanj> indie ui comments
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jim to review 'recognized' in SC
to make a top level statement similar to device independence at the
beginning of the document - perhaps an applicability note. [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, 31 January 2013 19:50:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:43 UTC