W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2015

Minutes: User Agent telecon 16 April 2015

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:49:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+=z1WkR6oPT1z6z-crSO93+3rA2j6kgMaH52bD3cP7=w9DBmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
from: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 16 Apr 2015

See also: IRC log   http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-irc>
Attendees
PresentJeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jim_Allan, JudyRegretsChairJim
AllanScribeallanj,
jeanne
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. Increase checkbox size
      <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. Shawn comment <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. Implementations by feature
      <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. UAWG Charter <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#item04>
   - Summary of Action Items
   <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

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

<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2015
Increase checkbox size

<allanj> scribe: allanj

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/WCAG2_HTML_Problem_File_Fixed.html

split results

in fireworks

text only zoom resulted in 2/4 checkbox did not get bigger, and 2/4 did get
bigger

<jeanne> when testing whether a plain HTML checkbox enlarges when the text
size enlarges, 2 people had it work, 2 did not have it work. All are
running FF 37.01 and all on Windows 7.

but standard zoom, checkbox all got bigger

<jeanne> All had Zoom Text Only turned off
Shawn comment

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015AprJun/0016.html

shawn: 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 are *global*. Most of the use of borders especially
and also margins that I've seen has been needed at the *element* level."

*RESOLUTION: add Border and Margins control to 1.4.2*

close item 1

take up item 2

<Greg> A bit odd to have borders be AA per-element but AAA globally
(because it's considered "Advanced").

gl: border by elements should be a AAA

<Greg> Margins definitely AA or better; but for Borders I have trouble
coming up with justifications for significant accessibility impact. Perhaps
it might be used to highlight headings and the like.

<Greg> However, I won't object to making Borders AA.

*RESOLUTION: move borders from 1.4.6 to 1.4.2*
Implementations by feature

<Greg> https://w3c.github.io/UAAG-Implementations/Implementations-by-feature

1.1.2 - can do this with USER STYLE sheet

greg has a stylesheet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K4WJs94FfY youtube with captions CC button
is not grayed out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe30habM0ls youtube with no captions no CC
button

1.1.3 - settings for images in browsers -

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/981640

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/turn-off-images-internet-explorer-49962.html

1.1.4

<scribe> done

1.1.5

<scribe> done

1.1.6

<scribe> done

discussion of list of alternative content type that the UA processes

gl: in 1.1.5 chrome can turn off images but not have alt, could use CSS to
display alt
... put yes/no/maybe at the top of each box in implementation columns
... so we know when something is really done

1.1.7

need to find

at risk

1.2.1

ja: not sure how to test this
UAWG Charter

<jeanne> Judy: We're getting a level of feedback that we've never gotten
before, some of which is good to see. So pretty much everything in the
charter package is being looked at with fresh eyes.

<jeanne> ... sometimes it is a matter of perspective or misconceptions

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

ja: the browsers say that there isn't the engagement in UAWG because the
browsers aren't here.
... maybe the question should be "why aren't the browsers here?"
... we continue to hear from PwD that there are basic accessibility
problems with browsers that are not being addressed.
... UAWG is not funded by W3C, there is an expectation it would be
published as a REC
... I want to explore the possibility that IF we could get permission to
recharter as a Note, what does UAWG see as options?
... What would it look like to recharter for Note track, if that were an
option, and how long would it take to get that charter done?

Jim: We could probably do it in a couple weeks

Greg: I totally respect the judgement and opinions of the people in this
working group. They are smart, dedicated people who have been doing this
work for a long time. That said, from my perspective personally, I really
like the idea of guidance documents that would be more useful to developers
than a standards document
... I will also be very sad if the group doesn't produce a standard. If
standards are enforced in purchasing decisions, that is the only thing that
gets real changes to happen. It won't drive the industry forward.
... but on the other hand, a number of our SC don't have implementations

<allanj> +1 to many SC being at risk if REC track

Judy: There a lot of complicated truths in what Greg said.
... What if it were not either/or, is there a value in looking at what can
go into REC track and what will not.

<allanj> UI that UAAG20 talks about is what to do for users, NOT how to do
something

<allanj> ... to get an accessible environment

Jim: The UI that we have in the Guidelines is what functions they need to
provide to users, not HOW they have to do it. We were very careful not to
include HOW.

Greg: Has anyone given any specfic examples of where we are telling them
how to change their UI?

Judy: The current discussion doesn't seem to be looking at the detail of
the spec in great depth

Greg: They may not have any substantial actual objections?

Judy: My understanding is that the browsers have objections such as: the
approach is outdated, the industry is moving toward apps, etc.
... there are comments from a few browsers that have been looking at UAAG
in depth.
... one browser said there would be more concerns if UAAG were published as
a normative.
... I'm not sure how to get us a clearer answer, except to have a series of
discussions.

Jim: Even if we do all these things, we still have a year to finish

Judy: Jan said that the group is self-censoring the spec, because they are
afraid it will be shot down if it is on REC track.

s/ Judy: Jan said that the group is self-censoring the spec, because they
are afraid it will be shot down if it is on REC track. //

Judy: I hear a mix of advantages and disadvantages, rather than a clear
consensus on a Note

Jan: This document has everything including the kitchen sink. To send it as
REC, we would have to take more out because we don't have implementations,
or it is not testable.
... We could do a small set that has implementations and publish that as a
REC.

Jim: that's a really low bar.

Jan: We take the best. That brings up the lowest browser.

<allanj> js: might help mobile browsers
 Summary of Action Items [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, 16 April 2015 18:50:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 April 2015 18:50:02 UTC