Re: AT in definition (was RE: Minutes 8 January 2009)

Ok,

Let's put it this way.  If a statement in the speck was:
"a user agent must not provide a virtual view", JAWS would not be in  
conformance because it as an AT is evaluated as to its adherence to  
the spec.  If you are going to include any application class as part  
of the deffinition of "user agent" you must either write spec that  
they can all comply with or they are not compliant for probably valid  
reasons so in the spec, it is necessary in these cases to spell out  
conformance for classes of user agents that are in the deffinition of  
user agent.

I'll look at the survey and respond but this is the substance of my  
concern.  I hope this is clearer.

On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Jim Allan wrote:

David,
The definition in question [1] is a slightly modified version of the
original definition in UAAG10, it is the current definition use in  
WCAG20
and ATAG20. You bring up a valid point. The group was not clear on the  
exact
meaning of your message. The group agreed that AT is not a user agent.  
We
considered removing the last sentence about examples from the  
definition.
After much discussion at the last meeting, we have proposed a revised
definition on the latest survey
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090120/ and welcome your comments.

Jim

1. 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org] On  
Behalf
Of David Poehlman
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:05 PM
To: Jim Allan; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Minutes 8 January 2009


When composing a deffinition 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  
spec
with firefox because of requirements that need to be fulfilled by  
firefox
not the AT.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Allan" <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Minutes 8 January 2009



http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html

08 Jan 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Kelly, Jim, Jeanne, Alan, Judy, Mark
Regrets
    Simon
Chair
    Jim Allan
Scribe
    jeanne

Contents

    * Topics
         1. Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
         2. Complete Review Survey Items
         3. Survey item 1 - order of sections in Intro
         4. Review Overview for inclusion in draft
         5. Survey on Layers of Guidance
         6. Open Action Items
    * Summary of Action Items





<AllanJ> title: UAWG Telecon

<KFord> zakim [microsoft] is kford

<Alan> I will have to leave in about 30 minutes. Other committments.

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/
Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
Complete Review Survey Items

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/

request for a separate announcement for surveys.

<AllanJ> JB: Definition should be first.

JB: Requests that the email subject is Survey: Fill Out for [date]
Survey item 1 - order of sections in Intro

<JR> Introduction

<JR> Definition of authoring tool

<JR> Components of Web Accessibility

<JR> Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document

<JR> Levels of Conformance

<JR> Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

KF: the definition needs to go at the beginning, not at the end.

<JR> NOTE: Levels of confromance removed from ATAG2 intro

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#intro

<AllanJ> MH: likes order of ATAG from JR

WCAG puts their definition last.

JA: There is no precedent, so we can choose whichever order we want.

Resolved: The definition of User agent will go after the Overview.

JB: The definition of User Agent could be a narrative in the beginning  
to
socially get people into the document.
... but that would give two different definitions, which could be a  
problem.
\

MH: Could give a link to the more formal definition.

s/\a problem.\a problem.

JA: Let's take time to work on a narrative definition.

<JR> user agent [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

<JR> 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.

JB: Give a 10 minute time limit.

MH: The definition that Jan put up doesn't include anything about
documentation.

JA: it doesn't include gmail, rrsagents and other web applications.

KF: Can you add in the last section that includes web content and web
applications.

<Alan> web apps run within web browsers, but so do media players, etc.

<Alan> maybe group web apps with assistive technologies.

JA: If we change our definition of user agent, will that cause  
problems for
the other documents.

JB: If the definition we have isn't accurate, we need to see how out  
of sync
it is with WCAG. Since WCAG is in final recommendation, that is fixed.

<AllanJ> JR: UAAG1 definition part 1 - The software and documentation
components that together, conform to the requirements of this  
document. This
is the most common use of the term in this document and is the usage  
in the
guidelines.

JB: ATAG doesn't say anything about web based or non-web based in the
definition.

<AllanJ> JR: recommend drop UAAG1 part 1, and only use part 2 which  
aligns
with ATAG and WCAG

KF: It is ok that we don't say web applications, because this is a basic
definition and it gives people a sense of the ballpark we are talking  
about
without leaving anything out that is critical.

<AllanJ> =1

JR: we can back it up with additional discussion that gives the scope
without making it part of the normative section.

jeanne agrees to dropping part 1

No objections and individual agreement.

<AllanJ> Proposed: 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.

proposed to add as the first sentence: 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.

<AllanJ>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/WD-UAAG20-20081210/Introduction-Proposal200812
23.html

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. This document specifies
requirements that, if satisfied by user agent developers, will lower
barriers to accessibility.

<KFord> sounds good to me.

<AllanJ> +1

<AllanJ> JR: would like an H3 section on definition

<AllanJ> JS: so it would be Into, Overview, Layers, ..., then Definition

<AllanJ> JR: need to see how it all flows

<AllanJ> MH: would link to definition go to H# section or glossary

<AllanJ> JA: glossary

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2008/WD-UAAG20-20081210/Introduction-Proposal200901
08.html

<AllanJ> MH: we may have 3 instances of the definition that all say  
the same
Introduction, H3, and glossary

JR: Whatever we do, ATAG should do the same thing.

JB: We also have to look at the publishing schedule.

<AllanJ> JB: timing, ATAG and UAAG should do the same thing, but not
critical until end stages

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to update the document Introduction with the
definition and introductory paragraph [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Update the document Introduction with  
the
definition and introductory paragraph [on Jeanne Spellman - due  
2009-01-15].
Review Overview for inclusion in draft

<AllanJ> reviewed comments: fine piece of work. I understand the need  
for
device independence. I was wanting some mention of platform issues  
(which
related to this). Accessibility changes with disability, but also with
environment, platform, bandwidth etc. UAAG is attempting to bridge  
these.
Not sure what spatial and temporal independence means.

JS: The overview section comes from the F2F where different sentences  
were
flagged to go into a conceptual overview. I had an action item to  
write one
sentence, but realized that we needed to pull the whole section  
together.
The sentences are pasted together with some wordsmithing to improve the
flow.

JR: the bullet points do not map to our document, that could cause
confusion.

JS: We could delete the sentence and bullets.

JB: Why don't we use our Principles there?

KF: This goal is achieved by using: list the principles.

This goal is achieved by constructing a user agent the complies with the
following principles:

JR: Some users may have more than one disability... This isn't an  
overview,
it is an answer to the question, "why are there so many options". The  
same
thing with security. It is an answer to the question: What about  
security?

<AllanJ> JB: security. why in intro. should be in guidelines.

<AllanJ> JS: at F2F we agreed to keep these in the intro

<JR> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms

JB: There are issues that do seem to deserve their own heading.

<AllanJ> JR: if we need to call out perhaps a new section

KF: This is better than what we had, so I propose we go ahead with this
intro for this publication and look at it again.

JR: WCAG put a note that the Working Group is still working on it and
interested in feedback.

<AllanJ> KF: add disclaimer and request feedback to make document more
consumable

KF: We could put it in the Status section: The Working Group is  
revising the
Introduction and is looking for feedback that the issues are  
introduced in a
manner that is clear.

JB: We can do it in the Status section and also add an Editor's Note.

<scribe> ACTION: JS top update the Status section and the  
announcements to
add a request for feedback on the Introduction and add an Editor's  
Note that
it is still being revised. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Top update the Status section and the
announcements to add a request for feedback on the Introduction and  
add an
Editor's Note that it is still being revised. [on Jeanne Spellman - due
2009-01-15].

JR: Add: the group is still looking for the best place to place this
information.

JB: We should look at the note system in the WCAG draft. It interrupts
people's flow of reading it.
... If we have signicant concerns about including it without the  
disclaimer,
then we should put it in.

JR: Add the disclaimer just for the security paragraph.
Survey on Layers of Guidance

JA: The editor's note asks if there will be advisory techniques.

<JR> JR: Think this part is too much: ", and documented common  
failures with
examples, resource links and code."

JR: there will be advisory techniques, I think.

JA: We would have difficulty providing examples and code.

MH: It is a can of worms, take it out.

KF. It needs to go.

In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using  
UAAG,
several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles,
general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of
sufficient techniques, resource links and code.

In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using  
UAAG,
several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles,
general guidelines, testable success criteria and a rich collection of
sufficient techniques, and resource links.

In order to meet the varying needs of the different audiences using  
UAAG,
several layers of guidance are provided including overall principles,
general guidelines, testable success criteria, a rich collection of
sufficient techniques, and resource links.

JA: Fix spelling: Two principle have been added - should be principles.

MH: needs a comma in the last paragraph between cognitive and language.

<AllanJ> +1

<scribe> ACTION: js to edit Layers of Guidance with the notes above.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: JS to make a list of items that are in multiple  
places so
that as we edit the document, all locations are updated. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Make a list of items that are in  
multiple
places so that as we edit the document, all locations are updated. [on
Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-15].
Open Action Items

JA: review the open actions and figure out how we can get them done,  
or say
that they won't be done.

JB: I recommend scheduling a chunk of time on a weekly basis to work  
on the
action items so they can be sent to Jeanne in time for the survey.

JA: What is the best way to coordinate with EO?

JB: THe best thing is for Judy to work with Shawn. Most groups do not  
have
regular representation on EO.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to update the document Introduction with the  
definition
and introductory paragraph [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: js to edit Layers of Guidance with the notes above.  
[recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to make a list of items that are in multiple places  
so that
as we edit the document, all locations are updated. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JS top update the Status section and the announcements  
to add
a request for feedback on the Introduction and add an Editor's Note  
that it
is still being revised. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-ua-minutes.html#action02]

[End of minutes]

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








-- 
Jonnie Appleseed
with his
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
reducing technology's disabilities
one byte at a time

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 17:06:02 UTC