- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:40:33 -0400
- To: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
My action item was to propose some wording to cover event handlers under
4.1.
Thinking about this, the problem really crosses perceive and operate.
What would people think of...
3.13 becoming "Provide access to interactivity information" (the text
would parallel 3.3 "Provide access to relationship information")
It would keep it's current SCs.
Then we add:
3.13.X Perceive Event Handlers: The user has the option to be alerted to
any input device event handlers (including those for pointing devices,
voice, etc.) that are associated with the current content focus (Level A).
And:
4.1.X Operate Event Handlers: The user can activate, via the keyboard,
any input device event handlers (including those for pointing devices,
voice, etc.) that are associated with the current content focus (Level A).
Cheers,
Jan
Simon Harper wrote:
> Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html
>
> IRC Log: http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-irc
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: Jan to Propose rewording of event handling requirements
> into higher level language for 4.1 [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action01]
> [NEW] ACTION: JS to remove interactive element from glossary [recorded
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action02]
> [NEW] ACTION: KF Update guideline 4.5 to reflect accessibility changes.
> Include first sentence of Simon's proposal 149 and make all items
> reflect accessibity settings. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action03]
>
> - DRAFT -
>
> User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
>
> 21 May 2009
>
> See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Allan_James, Spellman_Jeanne, Ford_Kelly, Swan_Henny_Richards_Jan,
> Hakkinen_Mark, Patch_kim
> Regrets
> Chair
> Jim_Allan
> Scribe
> Harper_Simon
> Contents
>
> Topics
> Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
> Finish 5/14 survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090513/
> ACTION-181 Investigate / review interactive and enabled for contradictions.
> Summary of Action Items
>
>
>
>
> <trackbot> Date: 21 May 2009
> <jeanne> be right there, I'm trying to get ATAG published. I'll be a few
> minutes.
> <KFord> Let's give folks a couple more minutes to arrive.
> <jeanne> on my way...
> <scribe> scribe: Harper_Simon
> <scribe> ScribeNick: sharper
> Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
>
> <mhakkinen> mark is p12
> Finish 5/14 survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090513/
>
> KF: Moving to point
> #78. (Re 4.2.3 **) ""Activate all input device event handlers""
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2009/ED-UAAG20-20090506/#gl-device-independent-handlers
>
> <KFord> Greg's feedback item 78.
> <KFord> #78. (Re 4.2.3 **) ""Activate all input device event handlers""
> <KFord> 4.2.3
> <KFord> #78. (Re 4.2.3 **)
> <KFord> ""Activate all input device event handlers"" is unclear: I'm
> afraid that I can't understand this success criterion based on its title
> (""Activate All"")
> <KFord> or its text ( ""The user can activate, as a group, all event
> handlers of the same input device event type, for the same control""),
> nor is it clear how
> <KFord> it is different than 4.2.1. Both require the user be able to
> activate event handlers, but they differ in: (a) although 4.2.1 applies
> to ""(content) elements""
> <KFord> that take content focus while 4.2.3 applies to ""(user
> interface) controls"" (per glossary definitons); (b) 4.2.1 requires that
> the user can activate them
> <KFord> with the keyboard while 4.2.3 doesn't specify the means,
> presumably making it OK if the user has to click a mouse to activate a
> mouse-click event handler
> <KFord> (which seems to remove the point); (c) 4.2.3 says ""as a group""
> while presumably 4.2.1 finds it enough if they can be activated
> separately; (d) 4.2.1
> <KFord> only applies to the event handlers that are ""explicitly
> associated"" with the element that has content focus, while presumably
> 4.2.3 requires it for all
> <KFord> UI controls that handle events even if they ""bubble up"" to the
> control rather than being ""explicitly associated"" with it; (e) 4.2.1
> requires the user
> <KFord> be able to navigate to and then trigger event handlers for an
> element, while 4.2.3 would presumably be met by providing an entirely
> separate facility that
> <KFord> merely allowed the user to pick UI controls and their event
> handlers from a master list; (f) etc., etc. As you can see, I find 4.2.3
> (and probably 4.2.1)
> <KFord> need significant changes to be made both clear and useful. I
> recommend that the two SC be combined into a single SC that (a) applies
> to both content elements
> <KFord> that have the content focus AND to UI controls that have the UI
> focus, (b) lets the user activate, in a single operation, ""all"" of the
> event handlers
> <KFord> for the user's choice of input device event handlers
> ""explicitly associated"" with that element or control. (Priority: 1
> High) (Type: Clarify)"
> JR: What do we mean when there are a number of specific handlers on a
> control and there can be multiple events (ie 2 mouse downs) - what is
> the use case for a keyboard user?
> KF: Know of no uA who will do the all thing. my question is what is our
> end goal - what do we want the end user to experience.
> <Greg> I'd say the high-level goal is that a keyboard (etc.) user be
> able to access all the functionality that content provides for mouse
> (etc.) users. The means is to let the user emulate mouse input via the
> keyboard.
> JR: all not such a problem - who flow is the problem - eg tabbing a
> document - come across a control, how does the system know that there is
> more than mouse down - how can they react?
> <Greg> I believe the idea of the guideline may be that the user can
> emulate mouse input more efficiently if it's implemented by the user
> agent and tied directly to its functionality, as opposed to making the
> user rely on a general-purpose mouse emulator (e.g. MouseKeys).
> KF: HTML eg - DIV with on click - do we want a tab stop enforced on all
> onclicks on div
> who is noisy
> <Greg> I support the notion that UA should provide keyboard access to
> all content elements that accept input of any sort. However, I believe
> that's already specified by 4.1.1, but maybe it important enough to call
> out explicitly.
> KP: can mouse by speech but harder than anything else - need keyboard to
> be used - can we switch mouse to regular cursor - would this be useful?
> ... Caret browsing is really useful - if you could snap the caret to
> where the mouse is this could be a good option.
> JR: Physical order of mouse actions which happen with a real mouse -
> there is an event sequence in which events are processed, how can this
> be done via the keyboard if a request occurs out of sequence?
> KF: what if we had a browser in which you could step through in the
> order of your choice?
> JR: act of tabbing could be the same as mousing over it?
> GL: 4.1.1 already accomplishes this as a high level goal
> ... We seem to be getting into spec. details (in regard to event
> handlers). For instance Mousekeys would allow the user to trigger events
> in their proper order, several ways of going about it - don't need to
> specify which one is used - just need the high level goal.
> ... Rewrite all this into the keyboard section to provided all
> functionality including event handlers to the keyboard
> KP: need to be careful regarding tab order and malformed contents
> KF: WCAG guidelines say that you should not get people into this
> situation - need to do something - but not over spec.
> <Greg> In response to the spoken comment, I think the issue of making
> navigation that can be navigated more efficiently is important but
> should be somewhere other than 4.2.
> <Greg> I agree that in general the UA should have features that help
> compensate for bad page design, and we can require features that
> mitigate negative effects of inaccessible content.
> <Jan> JR: to say +1 to GL - that event handlers can be brought into 4.1
> as a higeher level SC, +1 to Kim re: routing mouse to keyboard focus
> <Greg> +1 to Kim's suggestion of ability to route mouse to focus and
> vice versa.
> KF: If you have 10 events - how should I show them all.
> JR: not sure you need to show all, as the author has a model of the
> universe which may dictate and order.
> <Greg> Does anyone have reservations about moving 4.2 (make events
> available via keyboard) into 4.1 (make everything available via the
> keyboard)?
> JR: may not exist until used, or are predicated on some other sequential
> action
> KF: In summary, Move to 4.1 then condense and make a sub-point of
> keyboard access.
> <Jan> ACTION: Jan to Propose rewording of event handling requirements
> into higher level language for 4.1 [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action01]
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Propose rewording of event handling
> requirements into higher level language for 4.1 [on Jan Richards - due
> 2009-05-28].
> RESOLUTION: Move to 4.1 then condense and make a sub-point of keyboard
> access. Actions to be taken by JR.
> ACTION-149 to write proposal for 'default settings of UA should be
> accessible'
> KF: 3 accepts and 3 needs more discussion
> Discussion points
> Does the first part mean that Tools>Options needs a keyboard shortcut?
> Is the second part necessary? Maybe I wasn't there when this was
> discussed but ( ACTION-149 to write proposal for 'default settings of UA
> should be accessible') sounds like it was meant to mean that certain
> accessibility settings were going to be on by default.
> This may be beyond the scope of this item, but it's also important that
> the user be able to save reconfigured default settings. Even better if
> there's some way to share these settings.
> The globally accessible key combination as to bring up a configuration
> dialog. Is it necessary to add this point?
> <KFord> Simon's proposal
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009AprJun/0044.html
> <Greg> This sounds like an expanded version of the existing requirement
> for persistent keyboard settings--a general requirement for persistent
> user preference settings. Is that correct?
> <Greg> I think that we should not force the UA to instruct the user in
> accessibility features, or prompt them for accessibility settings.
> Perhaps UA documentation should be available outside of the product, so
> that one can get to it and read about accessibility-affecting features
> without being blocked by the product's inaccessible default settings.
> <Greg> Similarly, the ability to change the accessibility settings from
> outside the product would be extremely useful, although it's hard to do
> so certainly could not be higher than AAA.
> <Greg> -1; I think Simon's original wording needs some more work before
> being approved.
> <Greg> The ISO/ANSI guidelines for accessible software design include a
> Level AAA success criteria about providing "user settings schemes"
> designed for accessibility. I suggest we compare with those.
> <KFord> With respect to Jim's point
> <KFord> 4.1.8 Important Command Functions: Important command functions
> (e.g. related to navigation, display, content, information management,
> etc.) are available
> <KFord> in a single keystroke. (Level AA)
> GL: Problem with this is that most products have many config options
> scattered through the panels / dialogues
> KF: needs to not be hard to get to config options via the keyboard
> ... defined as less than 5 keystockes
> <Greg> Kelly, are you suggesting that *all* user preferences options be
> available within five keystrokes, or just, say, the main dialog or menu
> or wizard?
> KF: not a standard but a rule of thumb
> <Greg> The current discussion seems to be about making everything
> important efficiently available through the keyboard, which is a good
> goal but is it related to 4.5?
> <Greg> I do not support requiring the UA to prompt the user to make
> configuration changes on first run, mainly because studies all show that
> users hate it.
> KF: Is it important on first launch about default configurations wrt to
> accessibility settings?
> JA: no
> JR: useful in an ideal word but imposes overheads
> KF: Not an absolute must - a UA could decide to do this.
> KP and HS agree.
> <Henny> Should not prompt automatically, real focus should be on
> discoverability of how you can configure defaults.
> RESOLUTION: Don't believe that a UA does not need to prompt re
> accessibility configurations.
> KF: is the first part covered by other parts of the guidelines?
> <Greg> I am not convinced that a configuration dialog box is so special
> that it should always have a single keystroke. For example, using a key
> sequence such as Office's Alt+T,O is not significantly harder than a
> single key combination.
> KF: do we need the first part of the proposal?
> JA: Happy with just the first part: The user agent will allow its
> default settings to be reconfigured by the user
> <Greg> What do you mean by default. Is it what the user encounters the
> first time they run the product, or the next time they run the product?
> The latter is already covered by 4.5.1.
> KF: OK to leave in the first sentance
> JR: aren't configuration settings already configurable by the user anyhow.
> KP: sometimes settings don't stick, ie size of a window or dialogue -
> sometimes the size is importance and we shouls be able to make settings
> stick.
> ... not sure if they stick - not explicit.
> <Greg> I can agree that there may be problems from 4.5 being too broad
> and requiring ALL settings to be saved. Most should be persistent, but
> there are certainly rare cases where temporary settings are appropriately.
> <Jan> JR: Likes Kim's idea that window resizings are stored between
> sessions
> <KFord> We have Kinm.
> <KFord> 4.5.3 Portable Profiles: Sets of preferences are stored as
> separate files (allowing them to be transmitted electronically). (Level
> AAA)
> KF: We should list in a technical note the settings w=that have an
> impact on accessibility, list why, and put in window size
> <Greg> I agree that window size and position should be persistent, but
> the UA should also automatically correct saved settings that are no
> longer appropriate (e.g. the window is now off the screen because the
> screen resolution has changed between sessions).
> JR: does the single keystoke open 1 dialogue or multiple ones.
> KF: not going to have the single keystroke - how do we say we are going
> to prompt or allow configuration. Need something to say 'configure it'.
> GL: first sentance covers it.
> <Greg> (I don't think I said anything like "first sentence covers it".)
> SH: In the introduction of the draft we say.../
> A default user agent
> setting may be useful for one user but interfere with accessibility
> for another, therefore this document prefers configuration
> requirements rather than requirements for default settings
> <Greg> -1; I cannot vote for adding this until you define defaults".
> JR: would be ok if accessibility settings is inserted
> Questions: how to define accessibility settings.
> KF: how about, we change 4.5 to configure and store accessibility
> setting - and add accessibility to the guidelines and tehn add the first
> sentence.
> <Greg> The danger of changing it to "configure and store accessibility
> preference settings" is that developers tend to wrong distinguish
> between mainstream (useful) and accessibility (obscure) features.
> JA: works for me.
> GL: risk whenever you apply something to only accessibility settings
> that these get un-implemented. As a general approach it makes sense.
> KF: most UA do everything we want here today.
> ... Do we need it in a survey to get final sign off.
> RESOLUTION: Change 4.5 to configure and store accessibility setting -
> and add accessibility to the guidelines and then add the first sentence.
> ACTION-181 Investigate / review interactive and enabled for contradictions.
>
> 5 accepts and 2 neutrals
> <KFord> Resolved: Interactive element removed
> RESOLUTION: Interactive element removed
> <KFord> ACTION: JS to remove interactive element from glossary [recorded
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action02]
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Remove interactive element from glossary
> [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-05-28].
> <KFord> ACTION: KF Update guideline 4.5 to reflect accessibility
> changes. Include first sentence of Simon's proposal 149 and make all
> items reflect accessibity settings. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action03]
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Update guideline 4.5 to reflect
> accessibility changes. Include first sentence of Simon's proposal 149
> and make all items reflect accessibity settings. [on Kelly Ford - due
> 2009-05-28].
> <Greg> I see useful distinction between static vs. interactive elements,
> and the latter can be in two states, enabled and disabled.
> <Greg> I agree we can take 'interactive element' out for now; we can
> always add it back in if we later decide to use the term.
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: Jan to Propose rewording of event handling requirements
> into higher level language for 4.1 [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action01]
> [NEW] ACTION: JS to remove interactive element from glossary [recorded
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action02]
> [NEW] ACTION: KF Update guideline 4.5 to reflect accessibility changes.
> Include first sentence of Simon's proposal 149 and make all items
> reflect accessibity settings. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-ua-minutes.html#action03]
>
> [End of minutes]
>
>
--
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information
University of Toronto
Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
Phone: 416-946-7060
Fax: 416-971-2896
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:41:23 UTC