Minutes: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Jun 2011

[W3C]<http://www.w3.org/>

- DRAFT -
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16 Jun 2011

See also: IRC log<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-irc>

Attendees
Present
Jim, Greg, Kim, Jeanne, Kelly, Simon, Mark, Jan
Regrets
Chair
JimAllan, KellyFord
Scribe
kford
Contents

  *   Topics<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#agenda>
     *   Next face to faceMeeting: 3-4 November 2011 at W3C Technical Plenary in Santa Clara, CA, USA. - http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#item01>
     *   Updated Editor's Draft http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110609/<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#item02>
     *   Publication of next working draft<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#item03>
     *   Action Item Review<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#item04>
     *   Proposals for definition of user agents<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#item05>
  *   Summary of Action Items<http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes#ActionSummary>

________________________________

<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2011

<scribe> scribe: kford
Next face to faceMeeting: 3-4 November 2011 at W3C Technical Plenary in Santa Clara, CA, USA. - http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

JS: Please register for the next face to face.
... If you need financial assistance, there may be help, contact JS or Judy.
Updated Editor's Draft http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110609/

JS: This draft has a lot of work and a lot of action items included. I'd like to use this as the next working draft so please look at this criticlaly.
Publication of next working draft

JA: Any deadlines or issues with publishing?

JS: We need to publish. We are overdue.
... If possible I'd like this to be our last working draft before a last call.
... First question is how much more do we have to write before we are complete.

JR: If we have more to write I don't think we can consider this the last working draft before the last call.

JS: If we go with what JR is saying, I need help making a timeline we can stand behind.

JA: Let's make a deadline we can stand behind for the this draft.

JS: Can folks review the draft by next Tuesday, 6/21.?

<JAllan> +1

JA and JR say yes.

SH: I'll try and have a look tomorrow morning.

Resolved: Group will review by next Tuesday the current draft.

JS: Can we come up with a schedule to our second last call.

JA: Publish working draft around 7/1.

Publish second working draft on 8/15.

<JAllan> kf: would be comfortable with last call for guidelines by Oct 1.

<JAllan> js: discuss testing during f2f

<JAllan> kf: next thursday 6/23 to set a timeline

<JAllan> ... when reviewing consider time line for going forward

Resolved: Group to set timeline for docs at 6/23 meeting.

JA: I like the work and would be fine with putting all of it in the doc.

JS: The short and long versions should be linked.

GL: I'm in favor of inclusion.

<sharper> Sh +1 to inclusion

GL: Is there going to be an SC in UAAG saying you need to conform with ATAG where appropriate?

JA: I don't think you'd fail a user agent because the editor fails ATAG.

Correction, previous was from JR.

JR: ATAG ran into an issue with using the word conform.
... ATAG now uses meet versus conform because conform comes with many conditions.

<JAllan> ...instead uses 'meet WCAG 2.0"

<JAllan> JR: need to review UAAG for 'conform' in SC.

JA: Any objections to putting the proposal from JR in the document. First two paratgraphs will go in SC intro and full text goes in the implementing.

No objections heard.

<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to update the document with Jan's intro on "relationship with ATAG" so that the first two paragraphs are in both documents, and the numbered bullets are in the Implementing document only. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-570 - Update the document with Jan's intro on "relationship with ATAG" so that the first two paragraphs are in both documents, and the numbered bullets are in the Implementing document only. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-06-23].
Action Item Review

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0060.html

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110609/#sc-1111

Starting with mail from JS.

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110609/#gl-info-link

Group talking about how open in new viewport is lost from doc.

Consensus seems to be that this is still important.

JR: The old 1.1.1 was A and this is now AAA. This is a big difference. What's up?

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011JanMar/0040.html

<JAllan> ACTION: jallan to review 1.11.1 loss of open in a new viewport [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-571 - Review 1.11.1 loss of open in a new viewport [on Jim Allan - due 2011-06-23].

<jeanne> Jeanne to move Intent and second Example from old 1.11.1 to new 1.11.1

Resolved: JS will move intent and second example to the new 1.11.1.

<Greg> Here's the Intent paragraph that Jim pasted in during the conversation of 3 August 2010:

<Greg> Users who use only the keyboard or screen readers need to be able to easily discover information about a link, including the title of the link, whether or not that link is a webpage, PDF, etc. and whether the link goes to a new page, opens a new user agent with a new page, or goes to a different location in the current page. This information allows the navigation of Web content quicker,...

<Greg> ...easier, and with an expectation of what will happen upon link activation.

<Greg> <AllanJ> ...easier, and with an expectation of what will happen upon

<Greg> link activation.

JS: Now that people see what is involved here can folks review this and be prepared for next week.

Resolved: Tabling discussion on questions from JS until next week.
Proposals for definition of user agents

<JAllan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0051.html

Presentt: Jim, Greg, Kim, Jeanne, Kelly, Simon, Mark, Jan

<JAllan> definition of ua http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20110609/#intro-def-ua

<Jan> further to Greg's point: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20110613/#def-Authoring-Tool

<Jan> (ATAG includes examoples of and not)

Group talking about UA definition.

GL: Where does webkit fit for example.

JR: I gave a link to ATAG where we give examples that are and are not authoring tools.
... I'd say webkit is not a user agent.
... It is a component of a user agent.

MH: If I take webkit and put it in a box and serve web contnet, is this box now a user agent?

<JAllan> same for gecko

<JAllan> mh: browsers are turning up in all kinds of devices. does UA apply

<JAllan> KF: yes

<JAllan> then there is play station, wii, xbox as interface devices to webcontent

GL: I think examples help and to explicitedly state that rendering engines like webkit might not be UA, it is certainly required that anyone using these comply so it is good for webkit and such to comply.

<JAllan> kf: UA builders must understand the accessibility functionality of the underlying components that are used to create the UA.

<JAllan> ...if xyzkit does not support 'alt' then rendering engine and user interface will not make it accessible.

Does this cover the point?

While rendering engines and other technologies used to build user agents are not by themselves considered user agents, it is fundamental to user agent accessibility that these technologies support user agent requirmenets. In building a user agent the developer should fully understand the support for UAAG 2.0 when selecting technologies.

<JAllan> Mark's revision of introductory text:

<JAllan> "A user agent is any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users or is implemented using Web technologies. User agents include Web browsers, media players, and plug-ins that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content. The family of user agents also includes operating system shells, consumer electronics with Web-widgets, and stand-alone applications or...

<JAllan> ...embedded applications whose user interface is implemented as a combination of Web technologies."

<Greg> Here's Simon's text from the Implementing document:

<Greg> What qualifies as a User Agent?

<Greg> The following tests can be used to determine if software qualifies as a user agent for the purposes of these guidelines. It divides potential user agents into Primary Agents (the traditional "browser"), Extensions and Plug-ins, and Web-based User Agents.

<Greg> If the following three conditions are met then it is a Primary User Agent and Must Conform to UAAG:

<Greg> 1. If it is a standalone application; and

<Greg> 2. If it interprets any w3c specified language; and

<Greg> 3. If it provides a user interface or interprets either a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface.

<Greg> If the following two conditions are met then it is a User Agent Extension or Plug-In and Must Conform to UAAG:

<Greg> 1. If it is launched by, or extends the functionality of, a Primary User Agent; and

<Greg> 2. If post-launch user interaction either becomes part of, or is within the bounds of, the Primary User Agent.

<Greg> If the following three conditions are met then it is a Web-Based User Agent and Must Conform to UAAG:

<Greg> 1. If the user interface is generated by the interpretation of either a procedural or declarative language; and

<Greg> 2. If this interpretation is by a Primary User Agent, User Agent Extension or Plug-In; and

<Greg> 3. If user interaction is not passed to and from the Primary User Agent, User Agent Extension or Plug-In, or if user interaction does not modify the Document Object Model of its containing document.

KF: How many places do we need text that define a user agent.

MH: Glossary, Implementing and SC.

<JAllan> wiki page http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Definition_of_User_Agent

JR: ATAG used to have a definition in the introduction but we got rid of it and moved it to the glossary.

JA: Let's mash this definition out on the wiki page.

<Greg> I suggest having at least a user-friendly paragraph in the intro that explicitly refers readers to the glossary for a formal, normative definition.

KF: Simon sent something to the list on HTML5

SH: Does anything that is contenteditable need to comply with ATAG?

<JAllan> All: reviewing simon's message

<JAllan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0063.html

<JAllan> sh: hidden attribute. should it be hidden from screen readers. is 'hidden' in the dom?

Simon's mail on this:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0063.html

<Jan> re: contenteditable...might just be editing local content that user is seeing...so ATAG does not automatically apply - only applies when author effects the experience of other people.

<JAllan> html review page wiki for UAAG with process http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/HTML5_review_by_UAWG_notes

Group talking about wiki behavior. Consensus is if you make a big change sned it to the list to notify people to look.

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jallan to review 1.11.1 loss of open in a new viewport [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to update the document with Jan's intro on "relationship with ATAG" so that the first two paragraphs are in both documents, and the numbered bullets are in the Implementing document only. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/16-ua-minutes.html#action01]