- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:42:03 -0400
- To: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
25 Apr 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-irc
Attendees
Present
Eric, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Jeanne, KFORD, Kim_Patch
Regrets
Jim, Simon
Chair
kelly
Scribe
KimPatch
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]survey - finish #10 and partial conformance
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/
2. [5]don't want to collect a list of all technologies
that a browser renders (related to combining
conformance items 7&8)
* [6]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 25 April 2013
survey - finish #10 and partial conformance
[7]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/
[7] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/
Kelly: let's start with the last one limited conformance for
extensions
<kford> Survey:
<kford>
[8]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results
[8] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130412/results
Greg: last thing in chat log move 9 to 7
Kelly: the last one
Eric: one basic concern is that it's not clear what this is
intended to cover. I see two possible major purposes of this
section. One is to cover software that is not actually a full
user agent. Another possibility is intended to address software
that is not quite reach the level a, meaning all the applicable
level a success criteria and therefore is below level a, or
some combination of the two.
... another concern is it makes reference to a main user agent,
and we don't have a definition of that. There's a bunch of
issues related to that section and I felt, well given the
necessity of nailing down other key pieces of this document I
thought it may be better to spend our time on other things
rather than to try and carve out something that would raise a
bunch of new issues.
... so for that reason I disagreed with the proposal.
Jennne: so you're proposing that we not consider extensions
Eric: can't we address an extension through the regular
conformance criteria if that is indeed a user agent why not
use the criteria were already developing or trying to wrap up
rather than develop a whole new section that has a lot of
issues you have to resolve
Jeanne: what do other people think should we include
extensions? They are not user agents themselves, they are just
modifying something and passing it to the user agent
Jan: I think the basic structure is solid, if you wanted to
call out an extension for playing nicely in the UAAG
environment it would need to basically meet those success
criteria that applied to it and not interfere with other parts
of the ecosystem
Jeanne: back in the days when we were originally talking about
this,reason is to be able to include extensions like mouseless
browsing.
Jan: you tell us what you meet, and that you don't interfere
with user agent meeting other SC's
Eric: recall that a user agent relies on a platform to do some
of its work to fulfill its functionality such as rendering
content to users. So is the possible that an extension could be
viewed as a user agent in a situation where it relies upon a
browser as part of its platform. In other words a browser
doesn't necessarily have to be the user agent that is the
subject of the claim, rather
Jan: I think we've taken that into account we have some other
terms for that. Here we were really talking about something as
simple as mouseless browsing which is a very specific thing,
and if it were treated as a user agent it would fail
Eric: would fail if it were connected to a user agent?
Jan: but that's a ton of work you're saying if you want to
make a claim you also have to test all of Firefox, which is a
big deal. Other option is to claim as an extension, you
basically say we do this, we have documentation and we don't
brake we support keyboard accessibility of menu or the menu
item that we had or something like that, and we guarantee that
we don't break any of the...
... other essays that Firefox needs to
Eric: do you feel that type of conformance is to be documented
in this document or needs to be part of some other document
that shows that UAAG can still be helpful to you if you are
concerned about an extension that's not really in of itself
Jan: I think it encourages more software to get a foot on the
bottom of the ladder. We have a dozen full on browsers in the
world, but if we have other extensions joining in and making
these related extension claims it grows the ecosystem a bit
more. But if people feel strongly that it shouldn't be included
I am fine
Jeanne: it also increases the chances that browsers can pass
with an extension that's an advantage
Greg: I lean toward leaving it in for all the reasons that Jan
discussed. If you consider we want people to be able to add
commercial add-ins, makes sense. Splitting into another
document would require a lot of bureaucratic wrangling on the
part of our working group to create something with teeth as
opposed to an advisory thing. So if we want to have it possible
to do, including it in the...
... main document is the easiest way for us to do that.
Eric: in the example of mouseless browsing, is there anything
such as a platform for it? Does it have a platform does it
require
I'm trying to think through why doesn't fit within the
main section and is it just a matter that it's really
burdensome on the developer to try and document the nature of
the platform because let's say the platform is a browser,
then they've got to go...
... through...
... and document each piece of the browser, or I'm just
trying to think why it would be burdensome to require somebody
a developer of an extension to document
Jan: it's burdensome on them obviously if you just do one
little thing it's burdensome to have to make claims about the
whole browser you are working with. In looking at it on the
Firefox side, maybe there's more than one extension: ABC and D.
You don't want to be tied to making a claim just with A. We
leave it to them, it can be done. We've had that whole
conversation before.
Eric: can we clarify that this is for software that is not
actually a user agent or that is has very limited
functionality
Greg: that is what the first sentence says this option may be
used for a plug-in with limited functionality
Eric: do we have a definition for extension? Looking at the
language extension or plug-in with limited functionality.
Does it have to be an extension or does it have to be a plug-in
anything that limited functionality?
Greg: can you give us an example of something that would not be
a user agent or a plug-in?
Eric: what if somebody wanted to evaluate a limited function
web browser
Greg: that would be user agent
<Jan> From the draft: user agent extension (add-in)
<Jan> Software installed into a user agent that adds one or
more additional features that modify the behavior of the user
agent. Two common capabilities for user agent extensions are
the ability to *modify the content* before the user agent
renders it (e.g., to add highlights if certain types of
alternative content are present) and to *modify the user
agent's own user interface * (e.g. add a...
<Jan> ...headings view).
<Jan> plug-in [ATAG 2.0]
<Jan> A plug-in is a program that runs as part of the user
agent and that is not part of content. Users generally choose
to include or exclude plug-ins from their user agents.
Eric: well, how limited doesn't have to be what's the
dividing line between things that have to be evaluated in the
main section versus something that can offer this. This is a
very abbreviated thing. It's something that's are people
going to abuse it by trying to evaluate software that is more
limited than we really intended?
Jeanne: I think it's important to keep in mind that we are
probably the only people that will ever use this section.
Companies typically do not like to file conformance claims
because it opens them to lawsuits. So I think it's important to
realize that were the ones who are going to use this we are
going to use this to get this document for our recommendations.
So if we spend a lot of time...
... and edge cases we're not going to get it done.
Eric: I guess what I would like if we have this section what
I would like to see is does it have to be something that meets
the criteria of a user agent or can it be it ought to refer
to the class of software that it applies to ought to be defined
and we ought to tell explicitly how it differs from the user
agent. Because what I hear you saying is the thing that this is
for are not...
... actually user agents in the sense you've defined it.
Jan: they are parts of user agents, but they add functionality
Greg: note that we do have a definition
Jan: I already pasted in
Greg: the issue on the table is whether to keep the section
were deleted, correct?
Jan: also issue of what it should say I think we should
quickly come to a conclusion of what it should say, and then
decide later if we should keep the section. We don't want it to
be a section where we don't even know what the wording is going
to be
Kelly: so we should resolve the content
Jan: something around the general principle of let us know what
you think is applicable to you as an extension, certify that
you met it, certify that you don't prevent any other parts of
the user agent that you are plugging into from eating what it's
supposed to meet, and there you go. Once we get that text
firmed up we can put an editor's note into the actual document
signed that will come...
... back later and decide whether we want this in the final
draft.
Eric: it seems like this section is for something that is part
of the user agent, but is not I suppose you could have a part
of the user agent that is also user agent itself, but what I
hear is if it were a user agent itself it would be evaluated in
the main section. So if it's a part of a user agent that is not
a user agent itself it's a and your prime example would be an
add-in or...
... plug...
... in, so that would be e.g. add-on, plug-in. That would help
clarify what is being routed to the main section and what
belongs in this section. It's a part of the user agent that is
not that doesn't have the capabilities that are defined as
being part of a user agent. It doesn't satisfy all those
characteristics, but it meets some of them and therefore a
subset of the success criteria...
... should apply so your responsibility is to tell which you
think apply and also to certify that it doesn't prevent
Jeanne: prevent the main user agent from eating the success
criteria
Eric: okay, so based on the way I just defined the purpose of
this one way if you say that this applies to a part, that the
software is part of the user agent then you need to specify the
user agent of which it is a part, right?
Greg: for any claim you have you have to define what the user
agent is. That could be further clarified by giving one of the
in-line examples, where we describe a conformance claim
including the user agent
Eric: I like what Greg has said but instead of saying user
agent were kind of turning this thing on its head as a
partial conformance section so to clarify it, would it make
sense to say that the platform for the subject of this partial
conformance claim has a more extensive user agent type
capabilities? I guess you could say it's a user agent, but
literally we're sort of ...
... essentially...
... the reason I was tripping over user agent is the paradigm
that dominates in the document my assumption is the user agent
is the core subject of the claim. It's supplemented by its
platform. And so this kind of turns it on its head if we also
call the platform of a subject of partial conformance a user
agent.
Greg: I think we've already discussed that the platform can be
a user agent for example for a plug-in
Kelly: what are the consequences if we just delete this section
Jeanne: big consequences for conformance
Eric: it doesn't really help if you are relying on this we
have the wrong requirements, in other words every success
criterion should be found in at least one user agent
something that meets our definition of user agent
Jeanne: It's really late to start this argument. Going through
now is starting to eliminate all the success criteria that are
currently implemented in the major browsers would be a vast
change to the document. It's certainly not something I'm going
to support a mustard overwhelming group agreement against it.
Eric: are you confident the W3C would allow us to count things
that are instantiated in this partial conformance section
Jeanne: if it's written into conformance, yes, I can reasonably
say that if we've written it so that they can conform than we
can use it
Eric: if this is an important section to have I don't want to
open an issue that doesn't have to be opened. Do we need to
tweak our definition of user agent to say that it does it
also includes things that may do a subset of retrieve, render,
facilitate user interaction. Earlier we said it had to meet all
three
Jan: facilitate user interaction is very broad. Some of them
are pushing the envelope of what is currently in the market.
mouseless browsing is a good example. We don't want to push so
far that it's a dreamland. But mouseless browsing is not in the
out-of-the-box browser that you download, but available as an
extension which is easily excessive will to anybody who wants
to use browsers....
... There are several implementations of the ideas. And just as
these are plugged into the browser we kind of see our document
the same way it's plugged into the requirements. You can make
a conformance claim based on Firefox plus mouseless browsing,
particular mouseless browsing 2.35 or whatever. Or from
mouseless browsing perspective where it's just that small part,
they don't have a...
... claim for the whole ecosystem they can just do thIndia
Romeo part. it's called out as an extension. I don't think
there's a danger of Firefox submitting a claim and calling it
an extension.
Kelly: now we're up to 50 minutes on this
Greg: I support Jan suggestion that we move on to talking about
it. Assuming that we want to keep it how do we want to word it.
Kelly: Can we get to a point on this call where we can call
this done? This is one of the last things content wise that we
have to work on in this document. It would be nice to be done
today with this
Greg: I support the basic idea two content wording
suggestions. Seems to have dropped the part about not
preventing the host user agent from conforming with any UAAG
success criteria.
Jeanne: I'm good with that we probably need to check with Jim
and make sure he is
Greg: a technical definition would be something like the
hosting user agent does not fail any success criteria when this
add-in or extension is installed that it passes without the
add-in or extension is installed
... that's the point not pass every SC, but not fail any
because this extension is installed. Something like the hosting
user agent would that be another SC or is it just a sentence
in this can we make it a requirement without having SC or
certifying it can be verified
Jan: I think we should steer away from that not interfering
with other functionalities because there are so many other
functionalities that can be plugged in
<Greg> "The hosting user agent does not fail any success
criteria when the add-in or extension is installed that it
passes when the add-in or extension is not installed."
<Greg> Or "Installing the add-in does not cause the hosting
user agent to fail any success criteria that it would otherwise
pass."
Eric: do we need to make reference to hosting user agent at its
level. If you want your extension to conform of the AA level
then would it be the case that your hosting user agent the
success criteria that you are referencing are based on a AA
conformance level for your hosting user agent? Should there be
any kind of matching? I'm just trying to think of a way of
being a little bit more...
... specific about which success criteria you have to certify
that it doesn't interfere with?
Greg: pasted in language
General agreement with Greg's language
<Greg> Full paragraph: This option may be used for an extension
or plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG
2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance
for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria, as long as installing the add-in does not cause the
hosting user agent to fail any success criteria that it would
otherwise pass."
<Greg> "This option may be used for an extension or plug-in
with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0
conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a
specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to
fail any success criteria that it would otherwise pass."
<Greg> "This option may be used for an extension or plug-in
with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG 2.0
conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance for a
specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not
Applicable. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to
fail any success criteria that it would...
<Greg> ...otherwise pass."
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or
plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG
2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance
for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not
Applicable. The add-in must not cause the hosting user agent to
fail any success criteria that...
<Jan> ...it would otherwise pass.
Jeanne: I like it
Eric: claimant specified success criteria? Not success criteria
we enumerate for them, but something they enumerate for us as
part of the claim?
Jeanne: is that not clear
<jeanne> This option may be used for a user agent extension or
plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG
2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance
for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria stated in the claim. All other success criteria may be
denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the
hosting user agent to fail any success
<jeanne> criteria that...
<jeanne> <Jan> ...it would otherwise pass.
Eric: it's not clear who is specifying it is not stated.
Because the whole rest of the document is about us specifying
the criteria they need to meet, now they're specifyingwhich
success criteria that need to meet
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or
plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG
2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance
for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria. All other success criteria may be denoted as Not
Applicable. The add-in must not cause the combined user agent
(hosting user agent plus installed...
<Jan> ...extension or plug-in) to fail any success criteria
that the hosting user agent would otherwise pass.
Eric: it's got to be implicit that the user agent has a
platform
Jan: yes, remember that this may even be embedded we maybe
five or six layers down here
<Jan> This option may be used for a user agent extension or
plug-in with limited functionality that wishes to claim UAAG
2.0 conformance. An extension or plugin can claim conformance
for a specific success criterion or a narrow range of success
criteria a stated in the claim. All other success criteria may
be denoted as Not Applicable. The add-in must not cause the
combined user agent (hosting...
Eric: in terms of style, software wishes to claim conformance,
it's rather the claimant that wishes to claim conformance,
stylistic or editorial thing
<Jan> ...user agent plus installed extension or plug-in) to
fail any success criteria that the hosting user agent would
otherwise pass.
Greg: I do have one more substantial playing. The second
sentence: I just want to make sure that were not allowing them
to claim that they pass when they only when they actually
fail a bunch of success criteria. Does this open the door for
them to just say not applicable are we giving them too much
leeway to decide what to categorize not applicable?
Jan: doesn't the last sentence take care of it you have to
imagine yourself combined with the user agent and you can't
fail anything that it would otherwise pass
Greg: here's an exception to that agent that does not render
time-based media doesn't show media. Then you install plug-in
which adds the ability to play movies. So before the user agent
wanted its own conformance claim said NA two all the things
related to time-based media. The plug-in should not be able to
say well, we don't do captions that's okay were just going to
do NA ...
... we're not...
... forcing our host user agent from past to fail it was NA and
it still NA
Jan: you can't do that, now they do time-based media, and so
they fail
Greg: if we have examples to clarify it for people it will cut
down on any misinterpretations
Jan: yes examples in implementing
Greg: I agree
Making sure we have addressed everything you put in survey
Kelly: objections?
No objections
don't want to collect a list of all technologies that a browser
renders (related to combining conformance items 7&8)
Jeanne: concerned about listing included and excluded
technologies
Jan: those testing decide what should be included
Eric: my understanding up until now has been that both included
and excluded technologies were both within the subset of the
content technologies that were rendered, so it was my
understanding was that it was a comprehensive list of
technologies rendered
Jan: you're right so whatever is not in the included list is
in the excluded list
Jeanne: remember, we are the ones who are going to be doing
this
Greg: if we were to do a claim for Firefox and they can do math
ML would it be okay for us to do a claim the completely
ignores the fact that it can do math ML?
Jan: yes
Jeanne: why put extra work on ourselves?
Greg: it does open us up to browsers claiming conformance, but
until you read excluded technologies you find out that they're
not doing it for HTML 5
Jan: how long would it be take for something like that to be
dug up and put all over the web
Eric: I guess we are talking about whether the sum of the
included and excluded technologies is a comprehensive list are
not
Jeanne: we do not want to make this a comprehensive list
Eric: up until we discussed this last week my preference was
not to make it a comprehensive list
... even though I was in favor of an approach that sounds
closer to what Jeanne is saying we did decide to go a different
way. But I'm willing to consider a non-comprehensive list.
Greg: I'm willing to go with it as well. Companies are willing
to go through amazing gymnastics and used tortured logic. But I
don't see it as an advantage for companies filling in the
excluded list at all if sounds like they are not required to
anymore so they can just leave it blank. Exactly the same as
not addressing it in either list. I can live with that of
people want to go that...
... direction
<Jan> [9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#Standards
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#Standards
Jan: I would like to keep it, if we want to soften the language
the main formats something like that. It was on the
excluded list it would be easy to spot for on the excluded
list.
Eric: pursuing this route I would kind of go back to what my
original proposal enumerating a set of at least one rendered
content technologies is mandatory but enumerating one or more
excluded technologies would be optional
Jan: I prefer it not to be completely optional because you're
right, Greg's example you don't want to duck out of, for
example HTML for Firefox. It tails off to some pretty
unimportant stuff so can we put it in there and just soften it?
Kelly: where does this leave us?
Jan: if it's conquered to be one of the other, fine
Greg: my preference would be to keep it if we could, but I'm
willing to drop it if we have to
Jeanne: what I suggest is we work on softening that language
during editing and run it by the group next week
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to soften the wording of Excluded/
Included Technologies so that we are not requiring a
comprehensive list. [recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-825 - Soften the wording of Excluded/
Included Technologies so that we are not requiring a
comprehensive list. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-05-02].
Eric: I have a question is it our approach that if there is a
constraint imposed by the platform that the user agent or the
claimant can declare a success criteria that is impossible due
to the limitation of the agent is not applicable?
Greg: I have three or four sub categories of not applicable and
one of those is because the platform limitation
Eric: do we include that language in our document right now
Greg: I'm not sure
I don't consider the whole nonconformance claim to be part of
the partial answer
Greg: I don't consider the whole nonconformance claim to be
part of the partial answer. List
Eric: shorter list one of them is if a success criteria
higher performance than is claimed then that success criteria
is not applicable. That could be at the head of the list
<jeanne> ACTION: item to jeanne to find Greg's email and
include the list of reasons of why a success criterion can be
declared not applicable. [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'item'. You can review and register
nicknames at <[12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/users>.
[12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/users%3E.
Jeanne: except that sometimes AA is something different
Greg: be careful, there's a very limited set of rationale for
why you claim something is not applicable. I don't know of
anything in level A that becomes not applicable because of
something you're doing in AA
Eric: only if the success criteria of the not applicable
exceeds the level of conformance
Greg: if they're only going for level a all the ones that were
AA or AAA could be marked with something else such as not
claimed to distinguish it from non-applicable. Because I'd like
to keep none applicable for something that meets one of those
three or four very specific things and you know what the answer
is as opposed to were not even dealing with this becausewe are
not bothering to...
... check the AAA's.
Jan: I agree, it's just blank
Jeanne: that's the goal only give people the tests for the
level they need
Greg: people may have their own forms
Jeanne: very few people like to fill a conformance claims
because their lawyers don't like it
Eric: if the claims are our job it seems backwards. Hopefully
there's motivation for them to make the claim. I can't see it
as being up to us
Jeanne: the only reason is up to us is we have to prove
Kelly: we are at the stopping point. We pulled down a couple
thorny issues. Two things for next time, how do we shorten our
timeline, do things in parallel. We also have to think about
her levels.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: item to jeanne to find Greg's email and include
the list of reasons of why a success criterion can be declared
not applicable. [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to soften the wording of Excluded/
Included Technologies so that we are not requiring a
comprehensive list. [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 18:42:14 UTC