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

Minutes of UAWG teleconference of 23 April 2015

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <5539416D.2040305@w3.org>
To: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-ua-minutes.html

Text of minutes:

[1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

     User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

23 Apr 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-ua-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Jim_Allan, Greg_Lowney, Kim_Patch, Jan

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jim

    Scribe
           allanj

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]DRAFT Charter
             http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/draft_uawg_charter.html
          2. [5]Charter
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 23 April 2015

    <jeanne> P24 is greg

    <scribe> scribe: allanj

DRAFT Charter
[7]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/draft_uawg_charter.html

       [7] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/draft_uawg_charter.html

Charter

    must recharter every 3 years

    UAWG last chartered in 2010

    W3 Advisory Committee must approve

    UAWG can publish UAAG as a note

    js has questions?

    What do we want to do with the Reference?

    How long do we want the charter to run?

    What do we want to do once we get UAAG published as a Note?

    E.g. what would we work on?

    Would we want to become part of WCAG or some other iteration of
    a core group?

    What could our publications look like?

    gl: so we have permission to publish as a note, is that where
    we are going, or the start of a process.

    js: UAWG has 7 formal objections - all saying UAAG should be a
    note

    jr: this is a good thing. put something out that can be
    referenced.

    js: good point. most don't know the difference between Note and
    Recommendation

    jr: a browser implementation guide for WCAG

    === draft charter ===

    [8]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2015/draft_uawg_charter.html

       [8] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2015/draft_uawg_charter.html

    jr: write the implementations a piece at a time not a
    monolithic document

    js: start with use cases, what the UA need to do to implement
    WCAG. this is what is missing for UAs to pay attention
    ... +1 to implementations for WCAG
    ... could create modules that are REC for focus or media
    players
    ... very agile

    jr: need browser by in before we go there, need a couple of
    reps

    gl: last week ... people pay attention to recommendations
    ... a note has no teeth. gov won't point to something that is
    not a "standard"
    ... being able to give advice is good. however, if not part of
    gov purchasing then browser developers won't pay attention

    js: if we publish as is, remove words "normative" then finish
    the test suite.
    ... we would have everything needed for someone to implement,
    it would be complete.

    jr: if some gov decided to use it, they could. no one has used
    UAAG10
    ... in any legislation.

    kp: what are we talking about publishing
    ... what are choices

    js: pub UAAG20 as a note with some wording modifications
    ... then create normative modules
    ... or WCAG implementations
    ... or ...

    jr: pub as note plants a flag. then state the need for a
    normative module -- focus, etc.

    kp: this might be useful.

    jr: we dropped a couple of things that were really good, but we
    could not find a way to test.

    kp: can we do module tests

    gl: if we have to do tests, why not rec.

    js: note does not require testing
    ... tests are not implementations, we don't have to do the
    testing to hunt for implementations

    kp: doc with teeth is always better, but seems we won't
    ... get there. Note seems next best thing

    gl: good to document the things that are needed. Even if not
    implemented. there is no browser that will fully meet
    everything

    kp: do we need full test suite.

    jr: we should do a note. not a lot that was taken out.

    gl: over the last 4 years we have removed several. but don't
    have objective tests for some.

    kp: can we leave out tests for things that are untestable.
    ... can we segment tests, or segment the document - testable
    and no tests

    js: would have to re-org document

    kp: do it for each guideline - things with tests and things
    that are good advice

    js: could do tests in the reference document

    ja: what about using the Reference doc as a note.

    gl: guideline doc is more usable

    ja: have a button to show/hide IER

    kp: expand/collapse section

    js: time line less than a year if we have good deliverables

    jr: deliverable Note in a month or so
    ... one pager - UAAG implementation techniques for WCAG in 6
    months

    kp: does not include tests?

    js: gl concern - want something folks will refer to - test may
    help

    kp: modularized tests - easy things to test, and advisory SCs
    ... useful to publish existing tests

    jr: there is also quality of test items, they should be
    validated.
    ... are the tests good enough for scrutiny...no

    kp: perhaps provide "sample tests"

    jr: still lots of work
    ... to get UAs back to the table, one pager on things they are
    doing anyway.
    ... something from WCAG - how to create content that works with
    UA functionality... this is the functionality that is necessary
    for UA to provide meeitng WCAG SC
    ... and reference UAAG note

    kp: how many of these?

    jr: hopefully all of WCAG

    kp: how many to see if they are popular

    jr: 3 or so

    kp: a bit more, find the strategic one.
    ... so this would go in the charter as a task

    js: no number, just general - write techniques for implementing
    WCAG

    ja: have been talking about creating Note, developing tests,
    and WCAG implementations
    ... tho seems we thrashed the tests

    jr: no more time for me

    js: also Normative module (focus, media player, etc)

    ja: if normative module - then need tests and 2 implementations

    plan so far:

    * Large document Note

    * WCAG implementation sheets (point back to Note)

    * Normative modules with tests and 2 implementations

    gl: have to see how modules are developed, interrelations
    between modules might be an issue

    jr: WCAG plain old keyboard navigation - form navigation, link
    navigation
    ... add div with an CSS overflow that is not well implemented

    kp: video player on TED can't get to English subtitles from
    keyboard

    == add use cases to the list of things to do

    kp: need good use cases and bad use cases

    jr: standardization, give examples of where things are done
    well, and where they are not.

    kp: letting user save and share shortcuts, also change them,
    starting from a good base of standard shortcuts

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 19:00:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 23 April 2015 19:00:59 UTC