User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference: 15 Jan 2009

HTML Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html

IRC Log: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-irc



Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JA to review 3.3.4 in guideline 4.9 to see whether it  
is feasible for the UA to control the rendering. [recorded in http:// 
www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to Fix the numbering in Section 4.9 and add an  
editor's note saying that it came from section 3.3. Put a note in 3.3  
saying it was moved to 4.9. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15- 
ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to move 3.3.6, 3.3.7 back to Guideline 3.3  
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to put the new phrasing of User Agent into next  
week's survey. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua- 
minutes.html#action01]
- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 Jan 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
jeanne, sharper, jallan, Mark_Hakkinen, Spellman_Jeanne, Allan_Jim,  
Hakkinen_Mark, Harper_Simon
Regrets
Brewer_Judy, Ford_Kelly, Richards_Jan, Poehlman_David, Cantor_Alan
Chair
Allan_James, Brewer_Judy
Scribe
Harper_Simon, jeanne, sharper
Contents

Topics
Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
Formalizing our editorial standards (using action verbs, if clauses,  
etc. )
Should Assistive Technology be included in User Agent? See David's  
email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/ 
0003.html
Continue review of Guideline 3.5 through 3.13
Summary of Action Items


<trackbot> Date: 15 January 2009

<scribe> scribe: Harper_Simon
<scribe> ScribeNick: sharper
Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?

<mth> will join on by phone in approx 5 minutes
Current editors draft:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2009/UAAG20-20090113-ED/
Open Action Items: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/open
Formalizing our editorial standards (using action verbs, if clauses,  
etc. )

JA: Drifting on Language - identified at original meeting with JS.
... Now seem to be re-drifting - wondering if we have a set of  
phrases... etc
JS: Start with Action Verb - if there is an if clause - put that  
before Action verb - no decision on 'handles' / sort titles.
MH: Nothing concrete on this.
JA: Let's use JS's suggestion...'Start with Action Verb - if there is  
an if clause - put that before Action verb'
RESOLUTION: Start with Action Verb - if there is an IF-Clause - put  
that before the Action Verb
JA - MH: Need stock phrases - see example of 'provide a global  
option' against 'user has the option'
JA: Nail these down as we proceed.
Should Assistive Technology be included in User Agent? See David's  
email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/ 
0003.html

When composing a definition for something which you are gathering  
spec, it is necessary that the deffinition fit the spec. For  
instance, if you are going to call AT a user agent, the AT must meet  
the spec or the spec must be written such that it takes the AT unto  
account. I would think that this would be problematic in instances  
say where you try to use firefox with the mac os and while the AT for  
the Mac with Safari might meet the spec, It would not meet the
<AllanJ> user agent definition: A user agent is any software that  
retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include  
Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including  
assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and  
interacting with Web content.
JA: Could we remove AT from the definition?
... Does it hurt?
<AllanJ> SH: the first line is clear. the second line seems to  
contradict. AT does not do that.
<AllanJ> A user agent is any software that retrieves and presents Web  
content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players,  
plug-ins, and other programs that facilitate the retrieving,  
rendering and interacting with Web content.
<AllanJ> JS: remove the second sentence
<AllanJ> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and  
facilitates interaction with Web content for end users. Examples  
include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, extensions, and
<AllanJ> web applications.
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to put the new phrasing of User Agent into  
next week's survey. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua- 
minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Put the new phrasing of User Agent  
into next week's survey. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-22].
All: Do we have definitions from other WGroups? Not HTML 5
<mth> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/conform.html#didx-user_agent
<AllanJ> ATAG and WCAG reference the original UAAG def ... A user  
agent is any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end  
users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and  
other programs including assistive technologies, that help in  
retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content.
JA: To ask DP for clarification
... Place on Survey and Use in Editors Draft - to see responses.
Continue review of Guideline 3.5 through 3.13

<AllanJ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/ 
0006.html
JA JS: Discussion regarding suitable location re operable and  
perceivable.
JA: 3.3.D Text Scaling / 3.3.C Visual Media Scaling / 3.3.E Visual  
Media Brightness/Contrast are all perceivable.
<jeanne2> ACTION: jeanne to Fix the numbering in Section 4.9 and add  
an editor's note saying that it came from section 3.3. Put a note in  
3.3 saying it was moved to 4.9. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/ 
2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action02]
JA: WCAG Define both Operable and Perceivable
<trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Fix the numbering in Section 4.9 and  
add an editor's note saying that it came from section 3.3. Put a note  
in 3.3 saying it was moved to 4.9. [on Jeanne Spellman - due  
2009-01-22].
<jeanne2> scribe: jeanne
<AllanJ> 3.3.7 should be in perceivable
<jeanne2> slow is operable.
<jeanne2> if it requires a mechanism, then it should be under operable.
<jeanne2> scribe:sharper
JA: 3.3.6 Unavailable Content: Perceivable
MH: Agrees
RESOLUTION: 3.3.6 - moves to Perceivable
RESOLUTION: 3.3.7 - moves to Perceivable
<jeanne2> ACTION: jeanne to move 3.3.6, 3.3.7 back to Guideline 3.3  
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Move 3.3.6, 3.3.7 back to Guideline  
3.3 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-22].
JA: 3.3.5 Execution Placeholder: Operable?
<AllanJ> JS: in the introduction, we say we want user to have  
control. so we need to take 'user has the option' out of the equation
JS: Operate
JA agrees
<AllanJ> ...then decide if the result is operable or perceivable
SH: Agrees
RESOLUTION: 3.3.5 - stays as operable
JA: 3.3.4 based on examples seems to be operable
... Do we know if content will render? So operation seems key.
RESOLUTION: 3.3.4 - stays as operable
<jeanne2> ACTION: JA to review 3.3.4 in guideline 4.9 to see whether  
it is feasible for the UA to control the rendering. [recorded in  
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Review 3.3.4 in guideline 4.9 to see  
whether it is feasible for the UA to control the rendering. [on Jim  
Allan - due 2009-01-22].
JA: 3.3.3 Time-Based Media Load-Only.
JS: Operable Clearly
<AllanJ> +1
MH: Agrees
+1
RESOLUTION: 3.3.3 - stays as operable
JA: seems like a user override of the authors intention - maybe we  
need something saying 'user has the option to override...'
JS: Scattered over the doc - maybe need a user understanding document?
JA: MH has an action on this
MH: 3.3.8 Slow Multimedia is close to this
<jeanne2> I think the individual global preferences are better kept  
in the context (e.g. keyboard) for better understanding. It may be  
useful to have a list of all the global options in one location, but  
not in the Guidelines.
JA: 3.3.1 Background Image Toggle: Thoughts
SH: Operable
JA: Agrees
<jeanne2> JS: Operable
JS: Agrees
MH: Agrees
RESOLUTION: 3.3.1 - stays as operable
JA: 3.3.F Paused Time-Based Media - how different from 3.3.9
MH: being able to explore the media on the screen (once paused) will  
enable rich content interaction
JA: Need a list separate and apart from while it's streaming by.
MH: All there in the DOM.
JA: Is this teased out in the document - maybe hinders accessibility  
with all the voicing of the descriptions going by
MH: Maybe the timeline needs elaboration? For instance with the DAISY  
plug in to Firevox you can navigate via the timeline of the voicing  
or the structure of the document.
JA: Do we need to come up with a whole new set of guidelines for this  
navigation?
See 4.7.1 Structured Navigation
RESOLUTION: 3.3.1 Unresolved
Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JA to review 3.3.4 in guideline 4.9 to see whether it  
is feasible for the UA to control the rendering. [recorded in http:// 
www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to Fix the numbering in Section 4.9 and add an  
editor's note saying that it came from section 3.3. Put a note in 3.3  
saying it was moved to 4.9. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15- 
ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to move 3.3.6, 3.3.7 back to Guideline 3.3  
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to put the new phrasing of User Agent into next  
week's survey. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-ua- 
minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 19:44:01 UTC