W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2010

Minutes: User Agent Teleconference for 2 September 2010

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:03:24 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+c5h92w_rNPB4yAV1L+Vt2iwwqSPnjj8-71c3@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
from http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
02 Sep 2010

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-irc
Attendees

Present
    kford, AllanJ, Greg, JanRichards, Jeanne, sharper, Kim
Regrets
    GRosmaita
Chair
    KFord
Scribe
    AllanJ

Contents

    * Topics
         1. ATAG review
         2. HTML A11Y bugs relating to UA from Michael Cooper -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010JulSep/0061.html
         3. Select a date for a Face to Face meeting survey -
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/UAWG20100824/
         4. Writers Meeting Survey#4 -
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-4/
         5. Proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5
         6. Proposal for 2.1.6 Properties
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq6
         7. q4 Proposal for 2.1.7 Timely Communication
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq7
    * Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 02 September 2010

wai-ua/2010JulSep/0061.html Agenda+ ATAG review
ATAG review

<kford> UAAG Members:

<kford> These are the comments I am proposing to send to the official
comment address for Authoring tool guidelines 2.0 last call. This is
on our agenda to discuss on 9/2/2010.

<kford> You can find the last call document at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/.

<kford> 1.

<kford> A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized
alternative content is available for editing view content renderings,
then the alternative content is provided to authors.

<kford> UAReview: (and other SC) this and other success criteria were
at time very hard to understand (for us it depended on the line
breaks). suggest changing 'editing view' to 'editing-view'. it may
help the reader understand the content rendering and alternative
content are in the editing-view.

<kford> 2.

<kford> A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then at least one
of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.2]

<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an
existing third-party user agent; or

<kford> the goal of A.3.7 is to ensure the preview is accessible.

<kford> if A.3.7.2.a is true, there is no guarantee that the 3rd party
user agent is accessible. A.3.7.2.a only says there is a preview,
A.3.7.2.b the preview must be accessible according to UAAG. the way
A.3.7.2 is written having a preview and the preview being accessible
could be mutually exclusive.

<kford> UAReview: Suggest changing

<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an
existing third-party user agent; or to be

<kford> (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an
existing third-party accessible user agent;

<kford> 3.

<kford> 1. Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success
criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface
that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. This
includes views of the web content being edited and features that are
independent of the content being edited, such as menus, button bars,
status bars, user preferences, documentation, etc.

<kford> UAReview:What about authoring systems that offer end-to-end
publishing and web server publication/configuration. It should be
clear where any line for AU responsibility ends.

<kford> 4.

<kford> A.3.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects
platform display settings and control settings.

<kford> UAReview:Broaden this to any settings that impact accessibility?

<kford> 5.

<kford> B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool
provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a
range of template uses.

<kford> UAReview: How does this differ from just making any templates
accessible? One would assume all templates offered should have equal
accessibility. What happens if the end user selects a template with
less accessibility?

<kford> 6.

<kford> B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided
with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are
true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.4] (a) Indicate: The selection
mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known);
and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as
prominent as other template options.

<kford> UAReview: The definition for prominence says in part:

<kford> For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered
to be at least as prominent as item B if:

<kford> both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for
menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes); if
item B is emphasized, then so is item A;

<kford> so if the accessible option is at the bottom of a menu
separated from the less accessible option by 10 entires, this is
acceptable? If the list has 25 items and the user must scroll to see
the accessible option, is this then acceptable?

<Greg> Re #1 A.2.1.1, I agree totally with your concern--when read as
plain text it's unfathomable. To me the clearest wording for the SC
would be "is available when rendering content in editing views", if
they can adopt the phrase "rendering content" as equivalent to
"content rendering".

<Greg> Re #2, A.3.7.2, I think a clearer, less subjective wording for
would be "The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent
that conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A; or".
However, we should also acknowledge that the authoring tool may allow
the user to configure which third-party user agent should be used, and
should be able to pick an accessible one but...

<Greg> ...should not be prohibited from choosing an inaccessible one.
I haven't had time to draft wording that entirely works.

<Greg> Re #3, 1., You might want to give examples to more clearly
define what you mean by "authoring systems that offer end-to-end
publishing and web server publication/configuration". Would that
include Web-based authoring tools such as when Drupal provides forms
where the user can author or edit content that it hosts, using either
text markup or WYSIWIG mode, and their choice of Web browsers?

<Greg> Re #4, A.3.6.2, Their definitions of "display settings" and
"control settings" seem broad enough to possibly include all input or
output preference settings; however, it would be nice if one didn't
have to take the links to the glossary to figure that out, and it's
still somewhat ambiguous: would it include the option to hide or show
alternative text? Also, an example of preference settings...

<Greg> ...beyond display and control settings that still affect
accessibility would be the option to turn on and off AT compatibility
modes such as support for platform accessibility API.

<Greg> Re #5, B2.5.2, It sounds like you're proposing a requirement
that if the user selects an inaccessible template, the authoring tool
at least provides an accessible mechanism to exit the mode where
they're using that template.

<Greg> Also minor, but it might clarify that we're talking about
templates that are accessible to the author while creating or editing
content, not templates that are designed to produce content accessible
to the end-user. Is the latter also addressed somewhere?

<Greg> Re #6, Of the topic somewhat, but the question of whether
accessible options should be displayed as prominently as, and/or in
proximity to, their inaccessible counterparts applies to more things
than just templates (for example, a list of schemes).

<scribe> scribe: AllanJ

KF will send merged comments (including Gregs) to the ATWG after the meeting
HTML A11Y bugs relating to UA from Michael Cooper -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010JulSep/0061.html

<kford> my phone seems dead.

<kford> phoning in again. odd.

<kford> phone system is acting weird.

kf: a11y taskforce found 6 bugs that UAWG needs to adopt
... need to review bugs, history, and if we care about them and then adopt them.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751

<kford> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751

KP: question about HTML5 resolution of bug (work, won't)

kf: who wants to take these up, if we take them up, it is not an
insignificant amount of work

ja: response on 8751
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010JulSep/0067.html

js: does our SC on blinking in 4.7 impact this.
... might have a chance in changing html5

ja: question - do we want to change html5 or are they things we need
to add to uaag

js: should add to our spec. then also html5

gl: html has lots of inaccessible stuff, the accessibility is fixed in
WCAG and UAAG

<Greg> Or to rephrase that, HTML allows creation of inaccessible
content, which we try to address in WCAG and UAAG.

discussion of 8648, 8666, and 8682

kf: need 1 person to understand bugs, what does html5 say, etc. and
make presentation to the group.

<Greg> Bug 8647 - Define tab order for IFrame: I agree that this would
be useful, because the author can prescribe tab order within a frame
or frameless document, but essentially cannot for the entire document
as they have no way to control or even hint how it works on a page
that includes iframes. However, unlike some accessibility problems
with HTML5, this one could be addressed as future...

<Greg> ...enhancement to HTML5 attributes, rather than needing to be
in from the beginning.

ja: action Jallan review bugs listed in >
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751

kf: group bugs into 1 - html off base must be fixed, 2 - this is a
uaag issue, fix now, 3 - fix later

<Greg> I think that we can postpone any concerns (like 8647) that
don't absolutely need to be fixed in the first incarnation of HTML5
because they can be fixed later.

action Jallan review bugs listed in >
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751

<trackbot> Created ACTION-440 - Review bugs listed in >
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_id=8647,8648,8666,8682,8743,8751
[on Jim Allan - due 2010-09-09].

sh: agree with the proposed resolutions
Select a date for a Face to Face meeting survey -
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/UAWG20100824/

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/UAWG20100824/results

discussion for video meeting

js: 9 &10

kp +1

ja: +1

sh +1 (could participate for 3 or 4 hours)

discussion of start time

proposed 7 pacific, 9 central, 10 eastern, 3 gmt

Resolved: video telecon Nov 9-10 starting 7 pacific, 2 gmt

Resolution: video telecon Nov 9-10 starting 7 pacific, 2 gmt
Writers Meeting Survey#4 - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-4/

change url http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results

kf: start with q3 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq3

<Greg> Current wording:

<Greg> 2.1.3 Accessible Alternative: If a component of the user agent
user interface cannot be exposed through the platform accessibility
architecture, then provide an equivalent alternative that is exposed
through the platform accessibility architecture. (Level A)

<Greg> * Intent of Success Criterion 2.1.3:

<Greg> Users need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by the
user agent. The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure that
when circumstances do not allow direct accessibility to some items in
the user agent, there is an accessible option that will let them
complete their task.

<Greg> * Examples of Success Criterion 2.1.3 :

<Greg> o The user agent provides a single, complex control for
3-dimensional manipulation of a virtual object. This custom control
cannot be represented in the platform accessibility architecture, so
the user agent provides the user the option to achieve the same
functionality through an alternate user interface, such as a panel
with several basic controls that adjust the yar, spin, and...

<Greg> ...roll independently.

gl: need to mention API and platform accessibility architecture

kf: the sc says if component can't be exposed, get the user an equivalent.

gl: yes, then intent throws in 'direct accessibility', needs to be replaced

<Greg> The upshot is the Intent says "direct accessibility" where it
should say something like "support for assistive technology using a
platform accessibility architecture".

kf: perhaps say 'direct accessibility through the platform
accessibility architecture'

<Greg> Thus "Users need to be able to carry out all tasks provided by
the user agent. The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure
that when a component does not support assistive technlogy via a
platform accessibility architecture, there is an accessible component
that does."

<Greg> "Users who rely on assistive technology need to be able to
carry out all tasks provided by the user agent, just like everyone
else. When a particular user interface component cannot support for
the platform accessibiltiy architecture, and thus can't be made
compatible with assistive technology, the user agent should let the
user achieve the same goal using another component that IS fully...

<Greg> ...accessible."

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to update intent for 2.1.3 to be "Users who
rely on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all tasks
provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a particular
user interface component cannot support for the platform accessibiltiy
architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with assistive
technology, the user agent should let the user achieve the...
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-441 - Update intent for 2.1.3 to be "Users
who rely on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all
tasks provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a
particular user interface component cannot support for the platform
accessibiltiy architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with
assistive technology, the user agent should let the user achieve
the... [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: same goal using another component that IS fully accessible."

topic # Proposal for 2.1.4 Programmatic Availability of DOMs
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq4

<Greg> Current wording:

<Greg> 2.1.4 Programmatic Availability of DOMs: If the user agent
implements one or more DOMs, they must be made programmatically
available to assistive technologies. (Level A)

<Greg> * Intent of Success Criterion 2.1.4:

<Greg> User agents (and other applications) and assistive technologies
use a combination of DOMs, accessibility APIs, native platform APIs,
and hard-coded heuristics to provide an accessible user interface and
accessible content
(http://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/atspi/adoc/a11y-dom-apis.html).
It is the user agents responsibility to expose all relevant content to
the...

<Greg> ...platform accessibility api. Alternatively, the user agent
must respond to requests for information from APIs.

<Greg> * Examples of Success Criterion 2.1.4 :

<Greg> o In user agents today, an author may inject content into a web
page using CSS (generated content). This content is written to the
screen and the CSS DOM. The user agent does not expose this generated
content from the CSS-DOM (as per CSS recommendation) to the platform
accessibility API or to the HTML-DOM. This generated content is
non-existent to an assistive technology user. The...

<Greg> ...user agent should expose all information from all DOMs to
the platform accessibility API.

<Greg> o A web page is a compound document containing HTML, MathML,
and SVG. Each has a separate DOM. As the user moves through the
document, they are moving through multiple DOMs. The transition
between DOMs is seamless and transparent to the user and their
assistive technology. All of the content is read and all of the
interaction is available from the keyboard regardless of the...

<Greg> ...underlying source code or the respective DOM.

kf: defer till later
Proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to replace example 1 in intent for 2.1.5 to be
"When the user says the phrase 'Volume 35%' their speech input utility
can programmatically set the value of the volume slider to 35%, rather
than having to use trial and error by simulating mouse clicks or arrow
presses to try to find the 35% point." change 'programatic' in the
intent to be 'programmatic' [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-442 - Replace example 1 in intent for 2.1.5
to be "When the user says the phrase 'Volume 35%' their speech input
utility can programmatically set the value of the volume slider to
35%, rather than having to use trial and error by simulating mouse
clicks or arrow presses to try to find the 35% point." change
'programatic' in the intent to be 'programmatic' [on Jeanne Spellman -
due 2010-09-09].

<Greg> Tom activates a macro that sets the value of a tri-state check
boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to be
cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro
utility to set the control directly to the desired state.

<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility set the value of
a tri-state check boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would
normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and
“mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired
state.

<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value
of a tri-state check boxes to "mixed". Even though the control would
normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and
“mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired
state.

<Greg> Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value
of a tri-state check box to "mixed". Even though the control would
normally need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and
“mixed”, the macro utility can set the control directly to the desired
state.

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to changes example 2 in 2.1.5 to be "Francois
directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state
check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to
be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro
utility can set the control directly to the desired state." [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Changes example 2 in 2.1.5 to be
"Francois directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a
tri-state check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally
need to be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the
macro utility can set the control directly to the desired state." [on
Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
Proposal for 2.1.6 Properties
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq6

# intent of Success Criterion 2.1.6: These properties are all used by
assistive technology to allow provide alternative means for the user
to view or navigate the content, or to accurately create a view of the
user interface and rendered content. # Examples of Success Criterion
2.1.61: * Kiara loads a new version of a popular web browser for the
first time. She puts her screen reader...

scribe: into an "explore mode" that lets her review what is appearing
on the screen. Her screen reader uses the bounding rectangle of each
element to tell her that items from the menu bar all appear on the
same horizontal line, which is below the window's title bar. * Kiara
is using a screen reader at a telephone call center. The Web
application displays caller names in different colors...
... depending on their banking status. Kiara needs to know this
information to appropriately respond to each customer immediately,
without taking the time to look up their status through other means. *
Max uses a screen magnifier that only shows him a small amount of the
screen at one time. He gives it commands to pan through different
portions of a Web page, but then can give it...
... additional commands to quickly pan back to positions of interest,
such as the text matched by the recent Search operation, text that he
previously selected by dragging the mouse, or the text caret, rather
than having to manually pan through the document searching for them.

These properties are used by assistive technology to create
alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered
content as well as providing alternative means the user to interact
with these items.

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to change 1 sentence of intent of 2.1.6 to be
"These properties are used by assistive technology to create
alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered
content as well as providing alternative means for the user to
interact with these items." [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Change 1 sentence of intent of 2.1.6
to be "These properties are used by assistive technology to create
alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered
content as well as providing alternative means for the user to
interact with these items." [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-09-09].
q4 Proposal for 2.1.7 Timely Communication
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq7

kf: 4 accepts,
... need to review personas
http://www.aegis-project.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=53

<scribe> ACTION: GregLowney to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access
Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action05]

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

<scribe> ACTION: Greg to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access
Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-445 - Redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write
Access Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [on Greg
Lowney - due 2010-09-09].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Greg to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access Intent,
Examples and Related Resources. from
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: GregLowney to redraft proposal for 2.1.5 Write Access
Intent, Examples and Related Resources. from
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100802-3/results#xq5 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to change 1 sentence of intent of 2.1.6 to be
"These properties are used by assistive technology to create
alternative views of the user agent user interface and rendered
content as well as providing alternative means for the user to
interact with these items." [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to changes example 2 in 2.1.5 to be "Francois
directs his third-party macro utility to set the value of a tri-state
check box to "mixed". Even though the control would normally need to
be cycled through its states of “on”, “off”, and “mixed”, the macro
utility can set the control directly to the desired state." [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to replace example 1 in intent for 2.1.5 to be
"When the user says the phrase 'Volume 35%' their speech input utility
can programmatically set the value of the volume slider to 35%, rather
than having to use trial and error by simulating mouse clicks or arrow
presses to try to find the 35% point." change 'programatic' in the
intent to be 'programmatic' [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to update intent for 2.1.3 to be "Users who rely
on assistive technology need to be able to carry out all tasks
provided by the user agent, just like everyone else. When a particular
user interface component cannot support for the platform accessibiltiy
architecture, and thus can't be made compatible with assistive
technology, the user agent should let the user achieve the...
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/02-ua-minutes.html#action01]

[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
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 19:03:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:39 UTC