W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Minutes of 22 January teleconference

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:42:01 -0500
Message-ID: <35D2995717BF4CB2B995ED81E8A6195A@HANDS>
To: "Jeanne Spellman" <jeanne@w3.org>, "User Agent Working Group" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

James craig from apple is lead on accessibility for w3c.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeanne Spellman" <jeanne@w3.org>
To: "User Agent Working Group" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:54 PM
Subject: Minutes of 22 January teleconference


Minutes

IRC log

Action Items
ACTION: JA to create intro expansion of UA definition
ACTION: JS will load glossary items into the survey 20 a week, with present 
and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment to delete it.
ACTION: JS will publish the new draft of the definition in next weeks survey


Text of Minutes
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
22 Jan 2009

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Jan, Jeanne, Jim, Kelly, Mark(irc)
Regrets
    judy, Simon
Chair
    Jim
Scribe
    jeanne

Contents

    * Topics
         1. review Survey Items 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090120/
         2. Increasing group participation
         3. Glossary proposal
    * Summary of Action Items





<trackbot> Date: 22 January 2009

survey results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090120/results
review Survey Items http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090120/

JR: Recommends changes from survey response: Moving "end user" for 
grammatical reasons
... also suggesting "user agent" can include the additional functionality 
provided by particular plug-ins, extensions, and assistive technologies.

<AllanJ> +1 moving 'end user'

JR: extensions and plug-ins by themselves are not user agents.

A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates END 
USER interaction with Web content.

The definition applies to Web browsers and media players, whether or not 
they are Web-based. In addition, at the option of the Conformance Claimant, 
"user agent" can include the additional functionality provided by particular 
plug-ins, extensions, and assistive technologies.

<AllanJ> JS: so Firefox could say even though we don't provide heading 
navigation, we conform with use of a screen reader

<AllanJ> ...it gives them an out and put the onus the AT

JS: including assistive technologies in the definition as a option in the 
Conformance Claim gives the option that a browser developer could claim 
conformance by including an AT for conformance.

JR: Then we could define a base browser and specify certain SC requiring the 
base browser compliance.

JS: Hates the additional complexity

JR: then we have to take assistive technology out of the definition.

KF: How strongly do you feel that if browsers claimed accessibility with 
assistive technology do you think it is realistic in this regulatory 
environment?
... leave the AT in, but put an Editors Note asking whether it should be in 
or not.

<AllanJ> JS: don't see what we gain by including AT

KF: the one thing you gain by including assistive technology, is if I didn't 
have JAWS with virtual PC mode, I would not be able to use the web today.
... Do they fail the guideline if they don't do that?
... some browsers wouldn't be accessible because there is not a screen 
reader that has done the virtualizing screen reading for that browser. Does 
the browser fail the standard because the screen reader hasn't optimized for 
that browser?
... If someone implements the guidelines and then the AT doesn't implement 
it, is it the browser not compliant?

<AllanJ> KF: you don't just turn on a11y API and AT works

<AllanJ> ...lots more work involved by AT

KF: even if the AT implements the guidelines, it just doesn't automatically 
happen that things work.
... support must be added in the AT.

JR: there are money and politics involved.
... Then we should take the AT out of the definition, so that the user agent 
is taking everything to the point where the AT could take over.

<AllanJ> KF: if UA does all requirements of UAAG (api, dom, etc) then AT 
should be able to make the content accessible

If all the guidelines are met, the Assistive TEchnology will have all the 
information they need to make the content accessible.

<JR> The definition applies to Web browsers and media players, whether or 
not they are Web-based. In addition, at the option of the Conformance 
Claimant, "user agent" can include the additional functionality provided by 
particular plug-ins and extensions. Assistive technologies are separate from 
"user agents", but provide important services for certain end users with 
disabilities.

<AllanJ> JS: AT must be kept out of definition. there are browsers for 
specific disabilities that are not accessible to folks outside of the 
specified group.

JA: We keep talking about a definition. Now we are talking about the Example 
sentence. We have Jeanne's proposal in the survey, and Jan's proposal. We 
could use this in an Understanding document and lay out these issues because 
they are really critical.
... I propose using the short definition and lay out the issues in one or 
two paragraphs, expanding the definition and implications.
... We can put it in the Introduction, not publishing an entire 
Understanding document.

<AllanJ> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and 
facilitates END USER interaction with Web content.

JS: Putting the paragraphs in the definition section and pointing the 
glossary definition to the Definition section of the Introduction.

<mth> trying to follow with text only. would agree with the short def, as 
above, with elaboration in the intro or understanding doc.

JS: We are publishing with the definition agreed on Jan 15.

<scribe> ACTION: JS will publish the new draft of the definition in next 
weeks survey [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Will publish the new draft of the definition 
in next weeks survey [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-29].

<AllanJ> ACTION: allanj to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded 
in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - allanj

<AllanJ> ACTION: JA to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Create intro expansion of UA definition [on 
Jim Allan - due 2009-01-29].
Increasing group participation

KF: Can we go back to the browser vendors? Aaron Leventhal.

<AllanJ> JS: interest from disability user group

JS: I can go back to some reps from a speech input users group who were 
interested 6-8 months ago.

JA: I can go back to Opera and follow up on some contacts.

<AllanJ> also RNIB

<mth> apple/ safari/webkit?

<AllanJ> any contacts?

<mth> maybe

<mth> i will ask

<AllanJ> Google?

JR: a lot of people just want this to be done, and want to be able to refer 
to it. Since this spec doesn't involve writing code, they aren't as 
interested in participating in this group.

<mth> chromeis webkit, right?

<mth> meaning google chrome is webkit, i think.

<mth> charles chen might be intersting from google.

KF: I think it would be good to get people from other disabilities.

JA: Speech input uses also gets us keyboard functionality.

<AllanJ> JS: connection with anyone in the group but not participating and 
bring them back
Glossary proposal

JA: Thanks for Jan for slogging through this.

issue: Someone needs to read through the entire document and identify 
words/phrases that need a definition.

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-30 - Someone needs to read through the entire 
document and identify words/phrases that need a definition. ; please 
complete additional details at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/30/edit .

JA: How do we want to handle this logistically?

JR: there are over 100 definitions.

KF: I suggest putting it out to the list that we are going to approve the 
glossary this week, so bring all issues to the meeting next week.
... we are only going to discuss the glossary items with issues.

<AllanJ> JS: or A - M one week, or N - Z next week

JR: If they were loaded 20 at a time into the survey. That is what ATAG has 
been doing.

JA: I was proposing that we accept the changes and I add the comments in 
where they apply and put that into the survey.

<scribe> ACTION: JS will load glossary items into the survey 20 a week, with 
present and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment to delete it. 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Will load glossary items into the survey 20 
a week, with present and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment 
to delete it. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-29].

Happy birthday to Jim
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: allanj to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JA to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JS will load glossary items into the survey 20 a week, with 
present and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment to delete it. 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JS will publish the new draft of the definition in next weeks 
survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 20:42:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:37 UTC