Minutes: UAWG telecon 12 Sept 2013

from http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 12 Sep 2013

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-irc>
Attendees
Present[Microsoft], Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jeanne, Kim_PatchRegrets
EricChairjimAllan, kellyFordScribeGreg, Jan, jallan, jam
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile
      accessibility. Draft at
http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive
      Technologies
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. EO comments Levels of
conformance<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#item04>
      5. Text customization<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#item05>
   - Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------

<trackbot> Date: 12 September 2013
Discuss potential joint task force with WCAG on mobile accessibility. Draft
at http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-mobile-a11y-tf

<Greg> Jim: WCAG proposes a joint task force with us to address mobile
accessibility. Despite getting ready for last call and having limited
resources, this would be good in the long term.

<Greg> Jim: Draft charter is at the link provided.

<Greg> Jeanne: Normally WCAG has Techniques for different technologies; the
plan is to create mobile techniques, and she's pushed to include UAWG as we
have done a lot of work on mobile that should not go to waste. They
appreciate the fact that we have more expertise on that area at the moment.

<Greg> Jim read the Objective for the task force.

<Greg> Jim: Could add something about mobile browsers.

<Greg> scribe: Greg

<blockquote> Objective

The objective of Mobile Accessibility Task Force is produce techniques,
understanding and guidance documents as well as updates to existing related
W3C/WAI material that addresses the mobile space. This work includes
developing (or updating):

The creation of mobile techniques for WCAG using HTML5, ARIA, CSS and
JavaScript (primarily the open web stack);

The development of design guidance or mobile web accessibility best
practices;

Review of existing resources that may exist outside W3C space.

Approach

Initially the Task Force will define the scope of work need to fully
address mobile accessibility. The work will likely be broken down into
modular components that can be used as independent resources or as part of
a cohesive suite. The individual components of the Mobile Accessibility
Task Forces work may be developed as a W3C Recommendations, W3C Working
Group Notes, or other W3C/WAI...

scribe: resources. This will be decided after the development of an
initial, more detailed set of requirements.

The work will be carried out iteratively with continual involvement of the
public throughout the development. In particular, key stakeholders such as
developers, evaluators, experts, researchers, and users will be regularly
involved in the development process of the work of the Mobile Accessibility
Task Force.

</blockquote>

There were no objections.

Jan: Not sure if the entire group joins or if individual join.
... Probably need a resolution in favor, and then individuals will need to
explicitly join the task force as well.

Resolution: UAWG agrees to participate in the joint task for between UAAG
WG and WCAG WG on mobile accessibility

Jeanne: It probably involves at least one one-hour meeting per week for
those individuals who participate.
jr Proposal for UAAG2 Action 852 to write IER for 1.1.2
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0071.html

<Jan> Proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0020.html

<Jan> Small wording fix:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0093.html

<Jan> Other wording fixes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0090.html

<kford> for the record I will vote to try last call at this point.

<Jan> JS: +1

<Jan> Scribe: Jan

<allanj> ja: +1

GL: Rewrite looks ok...just pointed out small [mobile] annoyance

Jan: +1

<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0098.html

KP: No objection

Resolution: To accept the wording in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0090.html and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0093.html
GL Proposal on ACTION-875 re 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html

JA: GL had proposed rewording

<allanj> Proposed:

<allanj> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text
alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the
following are true: (Level AA)

<allanj> a. The user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives
with text values that are also available to assistive technologies.

<allanj> b. The user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content
available programmatically (and not via fields reserved for text
alternatives).

GL: No that's the old text
... Proposed text:

<Greg> <blockquote>

<Greg> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives
for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are
true: (Level AA)

<Greg> a. the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives
*by substituting* text values that are also available to assistive
technologies.

<Greg> b. the user agent makes *other available* metadata related to the
non-text content available programmatically, *but not via fields reserved
for text alternatives*.

<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 1.2.1:

<Greg> When alternative content is missing, it can be helpful for users to
have access to other information, metadata such as the filename, which can
be substituted as repair text. However, these are usually not as helpful as
alternative content that was properly authored for the original document.
In these cases assistive technology can provide users with a wider range of
information, which may be...

<Greg> ...more helpful than any one piece of repair text the user agent
could provide. Therefore it is important that assistive technology have
access to as much information about the non-text content as possible, but
also to be able to tell that no author-provided text alternative is
available. User agents should provide assistive technology with the
available metadata for the non-text content,...

<Greg> ...but not substitute repair text in ways assistive technology will
mistake it for author-provided text alternatives.

<Greg> Examples of Success Criterion 1.2.1:

<Greg> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text for images. When his
screen reader is reading a web page and encounters an image, it asks the
user agent for alternative text. If the user agent reports that no
alternative text is available, the screen reader accesses the DOM to
retrieve the title attribute associated with the image, its original file
name, and path to the downloaded image file....

<Greg> ...It extracts embedded metadata from the image file, such as its
original title and caption fields. It can then tell Ray that there is an
image with no alternative text, but provide him with the value it considers
most likely or which Ray has selected through his preferences, and also
provide a command that lets him hear the other values, and so make his own
judgement about the nature and...

<Greg> ...purpose of the image.

<Greg> </blockquote>

<Greg> Greg: I've marked the changed phrases in asterisks.

<Greg> Greg: Assuming we're sticking with a focus entirely on assistive
technology, this is a proposed minor rewrite that I think is slightly
clearer. I've marked the changed phrases in asterisks. The Intent paragraph
is mostly new. The reworked example should address the concerns of comment
EO31 to the effect that it needed more directly relevant and/or explanatory
examples.

JA: +1

JR: +1

SH: +1

JS: +1

KP: +1

Resolution: Accept rewrite of 1.2.1 and its IER in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html

<allanj> proposal:

GL: also proposes "Note: Throughout this document, all required behaviors
may be provided as optional preference settings unless a success criterion
explicitly says otherwise. For example, if a success criteria requires high
contrast between foreground text and its background, the user agent may
also provide choices with low contrast. A required behavior does not need
to be the default...
... option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise."
... To be added to "UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes":

JR: +1

<allanj> ja: +1

JA: +1

<allanj> js: +1

Resolution: Add this Note to section titled "UAAG 2.0 Conformance
Applicability Notes": Note: Throughout this document, all required
behaviors may be provided as optional preference settings unless a success
criterion explicitly says otherwise. For example, if a success criteria
requires high contrast between foreground text and its background, the user
agent may also provide choices with...
... low contrast. A required behavior does not need to be the default
option unless the success criteria explicitly says otherwise.

GL: Part 4, Warning User of Repair Text

JA: So this is a AAA...any implementation examples?
... At last hour to add in an unimplemented SC?

GL: I don't think its a particular compelling SC...but the example didn't
have an SC
... But I'm ok to postpone this

JA: I'm ok to postpone... anyone else want to keep it

JS: No

<scribe> *ACTION:* JS to remove example from 1.2.1: "Bintu is deaf and
relies on captions to replace audio. Bintu selects a caption button for a
video she wants to watch, and is informed that no captions exist but that
the user agent will try to generate some captions through automated means.
The player then analyzes the video soundtrack and provides speech-to-text
translation served as captions.... [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-887 - Remove example from 1.2.1: "bintu is deaf
and relies on captions to replace audio. bintu selects a caption button for
a video she wants to watch, and is informed that no captions exist but that
the user agent will try to generate some captions through automated means.
the player then analyzes the video soundtrack and provides speech-to-text
translation served as captions.... [on Jeanne F Spellman -

<trackbot> ... due 2013-09-19].

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: *Because she was warned, she will be prepared to encounter
more errors in the captions than if they had been authored by humans, and
more likely to recognize errors when they occur.*" AND save the GL proposed
SC 1.2.3 from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0068.html in the
wiki

JA: A long time ago EO sent comments? 2010? And now saying we didn't get
them.
... We have to clear them?

JS: Yes, most are editorial...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0100.html

JR: I don't agree with need for guideline handles...not used in wcag2, atag2

Resolution: Will not add "Handles" for Principles, and probably also
Guidelines because inconsistent with WCAG2 and ATAG2

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2013Sep/0001.html

<allanj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#intro-conf-levels

http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#intro_understand_levels_conformance

<allanj> scribe: jallan
EO comments Levels of conformance

<allanj> scribe: jam

<allanj> scribe: jan

JR: ATAG2 just has a sentence in the guideline then everything else in
implementing

GL: If we have resources to do it, seems better to do things like ATAG2
does...with lengthy explanation in Implementing doc

Resolution: Change the "Levels of Conformance" section to the way ATAG2
does theirs with a terse paragraph in the guidelines linked to a longer
explanation in the Implementing doc

JA: Any other proposals?

JS: Text customization proposal from wiki...link?
Text customization

<allanj>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Guideline_1.4_Text_Customization_Proposal

JA: Originally we have 1.4.1 and 1.4.2....
... Going to be hard to get implementations...except for user style
sheets... which cover all of this

JS: I don't think I want to start new SCs with new IERS
... let's just move the things she suggests moving

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/#gl-text-config

GL: Are we clear on the proposed changes

JR: This is not a baked proposal

JA: If we go to last call, we can do it after

KP: No IERs? Needs examples at this late date.

JA: My proposal is to take it up as a comment after last call.

KP: Could we get examples from her?

JA: On call examples not offered

JR: How much is covered by stylesheets? Couldn't we crack this out later?

JA: Any objection to doing this after last call?

JS: We can go to last call.... Judy will want the WG to approve final
document.
... Resolution to say Group has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG
2.0.
... Yes

KP: Yes

<allanj> +1

JA; Yes

GL: Yes

KP: Yes (see above in minutes)

KF: Yes (see above in minutes)

Resolution: UAWG has consensus to publish a Last Call of UAAG 2.0

JA: Pop...fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
... Thanks everyone for amazing mountains of work and stick-to-it-edness!

JR: You too Jim!

Bye
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* JS to remove example from 1.2.1:
"Bintu is deaf and relies on captions to replace audio. Bintu selects a
caption button for a video she wants to watch, and is informed that no
captions exist but that the user agent will try to generate some captions
through automated means. The player then analyzes the video soundtrack and
provides speech-to-text translation served as captions.... [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-ua-minutes.html#action01]

[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