W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2014

Minutes: User Agent telecon 18 Dec. 2014

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:11:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+=z1Wmd+oRiBbc1+x5KH5kPExQ2GS_W9N5gfMnjt57u46KegA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
from http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html

DRAFT - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 18
Dec 2014

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-irc>
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-irc
Attendees
 Present Jeanne, Jan, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, Eric Regrets Chair
JimAllan Scribe allanj
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. testing at CSUN
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. Action 1047 split 1.1.5
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. Action 1044 for 1.1.6
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. Action 1046 1.1.3
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item04>
      5. UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item05>
      6. UA defintion Action 1060
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#item06>
    - Summary of Action Items
   <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

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

 <trackbot> Date: 18 December 2014

<scribe> scribe: allanj
testing at CSUN

we have a room (we hope), tables, page on UAWG page, some form to complete
for results, etc, one half day, 10 - 15 tests
Action 1047 split 1.1.5

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0083.html

Split 1.1.5 so that the first two bullets are a and the third bullet is aa.
ier and handles must be split as well.

see: Justin has low vision and works in a noisy environment that makes it
difficult to listen to instructional videos. When he enlarges the text of
the captions to a viewable size, they block most of the video image. When
he is using his smart phone, Justin selects an option that causes the video
to pause when the caption track comes on so he can read it, then turns the
caption track off so...
... he can see the video using the full screen.

<Greg> I'm not sure the 2nd Justin example, of pausing the video every time
the captions change, is practical or implemented.

kp: agree

<Greg> Second, when a paragraph only mentions one person I think we can use
their name the first time and use a pronoun thereafter, as it's quite
unusual to always refer to someone by name.

<Greg> Third, it would be good in general to distinguish the situations
before and after he makes a change; in this draft you have to get far into
the third sentence before you're sure that this is showing the solution
rather than continuing a description of the problem.

<Greg> We could start the third sentence with "To fix this, he..."

<Greg> "Justin has low vision and works in a noisy environment that makes
it difficult to listen to instructional videos. When he enlarges the text
of the captions to a viewable size, they block most of the video image. *To
fix this,* he selects an option that displays the caption track in a
separate window, which he positions below the video image so the captions
don't block the video image."

<Greg> For B I'd just change the Intent paragraph a bit to make it clearer
that this is about fonts and colors; the generic "configure" can also
include position and the like, which are explicitly in A rather than here
in B.

<Kim> Users who require or can benefit from alternative media tracks in
video

<Kim> or audio might find that recognized text displayed within alternate

<Kim> media tracks is unusable due to its configuration. Enabling the user
to

<Kim> configure alternate media tracks (e.g. changing caption font and
color) allows content to be

<Kim> displayed in a way that meets the needs of the user.

<jeanne2> *ACTION:* jeanne to split 1.1.5 from email with edits from above.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1064 - Split 1.1.5 from email with edits from
above. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-12-25].

kim's edits are for Intent 1.1.5b

remove second Justin example in 1.1.5b

use Gregs edits above for first Justin example in 1.1.5b

Close Action-1047

<trackbot> Closed Action-1047.

*RESOLUTION: MS06 1.1.5 accepted. New SC written*
Action 1044 for 1.1.6

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0089.html

close action-1044

<trackbot> Closed action-1044.
Action 1046 1.1.3

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0082.html

<Greg> Ahh, my original suggestion was to add an example that someone may
want to turn off images because some are painfully high contrast, not about
configuring the replacement text.
UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes

start of thread
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0084.html

discussion of placement of conformance section.

jr: Conformance is normative. need to keep a reminder at the top, section
is important. If there is something that should not be normative...flag
them.

discussing http://w3c.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#applicability-notes

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs

gl: don't see them a Conformance, these are things that should be in
individual SC, but would be in so many SCs as to make reading difficult.
Would lean towards removing Conformance from the title

jr: depends how you read the document. top to bottom or conformance first.
As long as there are notes to cross reference them, all should be good.

<Greg> I don't think of these as really being related to Conformance. They
are bits of SC that should really be part of lots of SC, but were factored
out to make the SC less repetitive and thus easier to read and understand.
The Conformance section is generally more process-oriented and less
technical than these notes and the SC.

<Greg> Similarly I don't think of them as being part of the Introduction
(which is non-normative), but being part of the normative section
containing principles, guidelines, and success criteria.

eh: want to have a coherent introduction. these seem a mixed bag. perhaps
more explanation about what they are.

gl: good idea to have a para before the list, these apply to many of the
SC, and should be read before this list and assumed to be included in many
SCs

ja: +1

jr: +1

eh: is the UA definition changed.

jr: see my Action 1060 email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0091.html

<Jan> *ACTION:* Jan to write an intro paragraph for UAAG 2.0 Conformance
Applicability Notes [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1065 - Write an intro paragraph for uaag 2.0
conformance applicability notes [on Jan Richards - due 2014-12-25].
UA defintion Action 1060

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014OctDec/0091.html

<Jan> http://w3c.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#sc_511

eh: back to conformance. not clear on the value of the other Applicability
notes. Why are they there.
... web-based UA

<Jan> Native user agent - http://w3c.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#gl-AT-access

jr: native user agent ... Chrome is a native UA , but all of its settings
are web based

<Jan> "Plug-in" used 17 times

eh: what about applicability notes. which SC apply.
... want a good understandable document

<Jan> eh: maybe add "such as mobile and desktop browsers, plug-in"

eh: if we knew that a UA had to do all of these things. then things that do
not do all of these things then it is not a user agent.
... give a rationale for what is a UA and what is not
... want to preserve browser, media player, robust unlimited data sources.

*user agent*:

Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction
with web content. This includes:

- *native user agents* that run on operating systems and that perform
content retrieval, rendering and end-user interaction facilitation
themselves. A native user agent that is a browser may be referred to as a
*base browser*.

- *embedded user agents* (or *plug-ins*) that are installed into other user
agents (e.g. media player plug-in for a native browser). Embedded user
agents may establish direct connections with the platform (e.g.
communication via platform accessibility services).

- *web-based user agents* that have user interfaces implemented using web
content technologies and that are accessed by users via a native user agent
(e.g. web-based e-book reader, web-based video player). Note: Only a
limited sub-set of UAAG 2.0 success criteria will typically apply to
web-based user agents. See @@Link to note@@.

Notes:

- Many web applications retrieve, render and facilitate interaction with
very limited data sets (e.g. online ticket booking). In these cases, WCAG
2.0, rather than UAAG 2.0, is the most appropriate standard for assessing
the accessibility of the application.

- The UAAG 2.0 Reference includes some examples of tools that are and are
not considered user agents.

should be a link to the examples in the Reference Document

Reference Document

<Jan> - The UAAG 2.0 Reference includes some examples @@link to reference@@
of software that are and are not considered user agents.

Examples of software that are generally considered user agents under UAAG
2.0:

- Desktop web browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari,
Opera)

- Mobile web browsers (e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Android Browser, Opera
Mini, Atomic Web, Puffin)

- Browser plug-ins (e.g. QuickTime Plug-in for Firefox, Acrobat Reader
Plug-in for Internet Explorer, Shockwave Plug-in for Chrome)

- Authoring tools that render the web content being edited (e.g. Word,
Dreamweaver, HTML-Kit)

Note: Web view components (e.g. Webkit Webview component, Web Tools
Platform Plug-in for Eclipse, UIWebView for iOS) can be used to develop new
user agents. For UAAG 2.0 conformance, it is preferable to assess the
complete user agent.

Examples of software that are not considered user agents under UAAG 2.0 (in
all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):

- Operating environments or software bundles that include platform-based
user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS), though the included user agents
themselves are covered by UAAG 2.0.

- General-purpose platforms or toolkits that don't use web technologies,
even though they may be used by user agents for other purposes (e.g. GNOME,
KDE, .NET Framework/CLR).

- Narrow-purpose platform-based or web applications (e.g. online ticket
booking applications).

- Authoring tools that only display a source view of the web content being
edited (e.g. Notepad, Vim).

gl: could include Trident as an example of a web view component

eh: would it make sense to put this in guidelines in a non-normative
section so they don't have to switch documents to see examples of what is
and is not considered a UA

jr: there are lots of real world names of products, they may go away, or
become dated, don't want them in the normative guideline document

gl: what about QQ which is a wrapper for Trident web view component

jr: see the note.

gl: doesn't say ... for the purposes of UA X is not a user agent.

<Jan> Examples of software that are not considered user agents under UAAG
2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):

<Jan> - Operating environments or software bundles that include
platform-based user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS), though the
included user agents themselves are covered by UAAG 2.0.

<Jan> - General-purpose platforms or toolkits that don't use web
technologies, even though they may be used by user agents for other
purposes (e.g. GNOME, KDE, .NET Framework/CLR).

<Jan> - Narrow-purpose platform-based or web applications (e.g. online
ticket booking applications).

<Jan> - Authoring tools that only display a source view of the web content
being edited (e.g. Notepad, Vim).

<Greg> That is, I felt it was a little weird that it's implied that web
view components are user agents (although it's preferable not to test them
independently), but they don't fit into any of the three categories of user
agents.

<Jan> - Web view components (e.g. Webkit Webview component, Web Tools
Platform Plug-in for Eclipse, UIWebView for iOS) that can be used to
develop new user agents. For UAAG 2.0 conformance, it is preferable to
assess the complete user agent.

<Greg> Editorial: "that are used to develop user agents"? (They're used by
existing UA as well as new ones, and are used ONLY for building UA.)

eh: web view component is not a UA because ???

jr: doesn't facilitate enduser interaction. but webview component is not a
running piece of software, it needs everything else around it.

eh: concerned with "base browser" doesn't add anything to the definition.

Close Action-1060

<trackbot> Closed Action-1060.

Next Meeting after this one...Jan 8, 2015

close action-1041 rewrite 1.3.2

close action-1042 Duplicate items(?)

close action-1049 fix 5.1.3

close action-1050 in-page search

close action-1054 fix 5.1.3

close action-1056 SC 4.1 pf review

close action-1041

<trackbot> Closed action-1041.

close action-1042

<trackbot> Closed action-1042.

close action-1049

<trackbot> Closed action-1049.

close action-1050

<trackbot> Closed action-1050.

close action-1054

<trackbot> Closed action-1054.
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jan to write an intro paragraph
for UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to split 1.1.5 from email with edits from above.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/18-ua-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]

-- 
[image: http://www.tsbvi.edu] <http://www.tsbvi.edu>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, 18 December 2014 21:11:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:46 UTC