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

Minutes of the 7 October UAWG Teleconference

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:56:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4CAE17D1.3040603@w3.org>
To: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-ua-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

    User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

07 Oct 2010

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-ua-irc

Attendees

    Present
           +44.797.663.aaaa, +1.512.206.aabb, jallan, +1.425.895.aacc,
           patrickhlauke, Greg, sharper, Jeanne, kford, Kim_Patch

    Regrets
    Chair
           JimAllan_KellyFord

    Scribe
           jallan

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Action Item Review
          2. [5]Tooltips - device agnosticism [bug 10873]
             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0
             003.html
          3. [6]November F2F
          4. [7]Are Smart Phone Apps user agents?
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 07 October 2010

    zalo, aabb is really jallan

    <patrickhlauke> is my microphone not working, or is it the phone
    bridge?

    <patrickhlauke> i can hear you folks, but you can't hear me

    <patrickhlauke> hmm

    <patrickhlauke> ok

    <scribe> scribe: jallan

Action Item Review

    discussion of action items

    <jeanne> close action-247

    <trackbot> ACTION-247 And MH to create techniques for 4.9 by
    December 3 closed

    close action-268

    <trackbot> ACTION-268 Craft request for input on synthesized speech
    inclusion in the document closed

    close action-269

    <trackbot> ACTION-269 Answer comment saying that we think section
    3.6.1 covers the comment. closed

    close action-286

    <trackbot> ACTION-286 Create use case for no-script etc. for
    implementation doc closed

    close action-289

    <trackbot> ACTION-289 Write a success criteria for viewport scaling
    (text, images) closed

    close action-291

    <trackbot> ACTION-291 Write SC for user ability to open a plugin or
    open external player. closed

    close action-319

    <trackbot> ACTION-319 Copy edit draft with JS to normalize document
    and establish conventions closed

    <jeanne> [9]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-ua-minutes.html#item06

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/04-ua-minutes.html#item06

    stopped review at item 329 (start with this next time)

Tooltips - device agnosticism [bug 10873]
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0003.html

      [10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0003.html

    gl: do we need an example about tooltips

    ja: no hover on touch screens

    pl: there is some discussion on how to implement hover in OS

    js: should not decrease functionality because it is not suppored in
    tablets
    ... would rather touchscreen develop a hover function

    gl: does make sense to have an efficient UI for commonly used
    functions

    <jeanne> GL: things that people want to do a lot should also have a
    pointer-only method of accomplishing it.

    gl: for headpointer, and voice input etc. need a hover function

    <Greg> Should we add a recommendation to include an efficient method
    of carrying out frequently-used tasks using each supported input
    mode (e.g. keyboard, mouse, touch screen, speech). Keyboard (or
    keyboard equivalent)” is of course the most important because
    keyboard equivalent makes it device independent, but the others can
    be recommendations.

    <Greg> Having optimized methods for pointing device and touchscreen
    are very useful for people using head pointers, etc.

    pl: been talking for years about not using mouse over, etc, nobody
    listened. now with iphone, they have begun to listen.
    ... how to rework GL 4.1 to make more device agnostic. change to
    'keyboard and keyboard like interfaces (pointers, touch screen, etc)

    gl: in ISO use keybard or keybard equivelent throught the ISO
    document

    sh: no matter the interface, the os generates keyboard scan code,
    and sends that to the OS for activation

    <Greg> The answer is that by “keyboard” we always mean “keyboard or
    keyboard equivalent”; however, it is true that (a) this only makes
    features accessible, not necessarily convenient, and (b) UAAG20 does
    not currently *say* that keyboard means “keyboard (or
    keyboard-equivalent)”. ISO 9241-171 actually uses the phrase
    “keyboard (or keyboard-equivalent)” throughout. I recommend we do...

    <Greg> ...the same.

    sh: all keys have a scan code, when you select something the
    scancode is sent to the OS for activation
    ... even mouse clicks do this

    <Greg> I don't support using the term "scan code" because that
    really applies only to low-level keyboard emulation, but keyboard
    emulation can also be done at a high level (e.g. events). Also, most
    readers won't understand the term "scan code" whereas most would
    understand "keyboard (or keyboard emulator)".

    pl: problem with touchscreen, functions much like a mouse, but no
    hover. poor heurestics-touch and smear, or have a long touch

    sh: voiceover users keyboard emulation

    gl: scancode only applies to low level activity

    <patrickhlauke> still not sure how touchscreen navigation
    (scrolling, activating with a tap, long-tapping for context) can be
    squared with keyboard/keyboard-like language

    kf: UAAG wants to be device agnostic. yet, 4.1 is all keyboard.

    <patrickhlauke> and in fact, do we need guidance on mouse
    interfaces?

    kf: how to not waterdown 4.1, yet cover nne keyboard devices
    ... things that happen on webpages today were not functional with
    smartphones a year ago.

    <patrickhlauke> if i was a radical, i'd say the title of guideline
    4.1 should be "ensure full access" (with all available input
    modalities)

    kf: smartphone UA have gotten smarter (js, etc.)
    ... what do we say to cover present functioning and the future.

    <patrickhlauke> and then split into the various prominent
    modalities, with explanation (e.g. what is keyboard, with definition
    of kbd-like modalities)

    kf: topic for face to face- touch tablet
    ... also do we write a response.

    <jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to draft a response to the HTML5 bug on
    device independence, tooltip and hover functions. [recorded in
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-ua-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Draft a response to the HTML5 bug on
    device independence, tooltip and hover functions. [on Jeanne
    Spellman - due 2010-10-14].

November F2F

    dates are November 9 & 10

Are Smart Phone Apps user agents?

    gl: don't understand question. they all sit on the OS

    js: some are

    kf: example of traffic detail app, it is using web servicess.

    gl: some apps use internet applications, others use web protocols
    and are user agents

    <patrickhlauke> "user agent

    <patrickhlauke> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders
    and facilitates end user interaction with Web content."

    ja: http is web app, but udp is not

    <patrickhlauke> is that the cut-off point?

    js: this is related to secondlife. general concensus...if something
    uses uri then it needs a user agent

    pl: perhaps need to define 'web content' (html, css, js, flash,
    etc.)
    ... interaction with content

    kf: what about twitter apps

    js: it uses webconent, it facilitates interaction

    pl: not a webapp, just pulling info out of a ddatabase, in an app
    ... may be splitting hairs.

    ja: its all about splitting hairs.

    <Greg> It seems that all applications--for any platforms--fits into
    one of three categories: stand-alone apps that don't interact with
    the network or use W3C protocols or formats (i.e. standalone apps);
    apps that use networking but not W3C protocols or formats (i.e.
    Internet apps); and those that do use W3C protocols or formats (i.e.
    Web apps). The problem is that these distinctions are usually...

    <Greg> ...transparent to the user. Two apps might be entirely
    identical to the user, but because one uses W3C standards "under the
    hood" while the other does not, only one is theoretically covered by
    UAAG.

    kf: many tweets have urls, that can be opened with full browser

    pl: twitter sending url to UA is still not a UA, if the url opens in
    twitter, then it is a UA and should comply

    <patrickhlauke> "content (web content) includes empty content

    <patrickhlauke> Information and sensory experience to be
    communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or
    markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and
    interactions [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

    <patrickhlauke> empty content (which may be alternative content) is
    either a null value or an empty string (e.g. one that is zero
    characters long). For instance, in HTML, alt="" sets the value of
    the alt attribute to the empty string. In some markup languages, an
    element may have empty content (e.g., the HR element in HTML)."

    <Greg> I sort of want to avoid the term "web application", because I
    believe UAAG is supposed to apply to, say, SVG viewers even if they
    don't have any built-in network or Web awareness, *because* SVG is a
    W3C standard.

    ja: need to define 'web content' , just because something goes over
    the ethernet cable does not make it webcontent (skype, im, etc)

    pl: pl: murky definition

    js: web content = has uri/url

    gl: standalone app that plays flash. but if it transfers stuff over
    web, using w3 protocols

    pl: looking at wcag2, define webpage, but not content

    <patrickhlauke> [12]http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

    <patrickhlauke> wcag skirted around "what is web content" and
    instead defines "web page" though their intro text still talks about
    web content

    <Greg> So, my current leaning is still towards saying UAAG applies
    to any software that uses W3C protocols or formats. (But I agree
    that leaves out software that renders proprietary formats such as
    Flash players, unless they transfer data over using Web protocols
    such as using URIs.)

    pl: if we don't define what we apply to, we leave ourselve open for
    ?criticism?

    gl: but compliance is voluntary, so may not need to define.

    <Greg> I hope we don't need to provide an objective definition of
    what UAAG applies to because it's up to a developer to decide
    whether or not they want to claim compliance, and up to a purchasing
    organization to decide for which products or product categories they
    want to require compliance.

    pl: we don't give authoratative definition of webcontent, here is
    what we think it is, if you think your device, applicatoin covers
    this then it is a UA

    <patrickhlauke> suggest saying specifically in UAAG intro to say we
    don't give authoritive definition of "what is web content", and that
    UA authors need to decide for themselves, if they want to claim
    compliance, if their UA is using "web content"

    gl: discuss 'raising the floor" and/or NPII to see how we can
    leverage, or overlap

    <patrickhlauke> (gonna have to dip out, not wanting to break up your
    interesting - though offlist - discussion ... speak soon tho)

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to draft a response to the HTML5 bug on device
    independence, tooltip and hover functions. [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-ua-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 18:56:44 UTC

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