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

[correction]: Minutes: User Agent telecon 16 April 2015

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <55311956.6080202@w3.org>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
When I was scribing, I attributed the wrong person:

ja: the browsers say that there isn't the engagement in UAWG because the
browsers aren't here.

That should have been jb.  I corrected the minutes to say:

jb: the browsers say that there isn't the engagement in UAWG because the
browsers aren't here.


On 4/16/2015 2:49 PM, Jim Allan wrote:
> 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]
>
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 14:31:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 April 2015 14:31:53 UTC