- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:59:41 -0500
- To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=z1W=rQN8_V5kUFprh1YDdiyHme6tb8rOwudRWwVre4omHGg@mail.gmail.com>
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html
DRAFT - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 27
Jun 2013
See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-irc>
Attendees
Present Jeanne, Jan, Eric, Jim_Allan, Kelly, Kim_Patch, Greg_LowneyRegrets
simonChairJimAllan, KellyFord
ScribeKim
Contents
- Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
1. Face to Face
Reminder<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item01>
2. Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success
Criteria<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item02>
3. Proposed "programmatically available"
definition<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item03>
4. Crowd source implementation - moving
forward<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item04>
5. We have Comments!! Dealing with
them<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item05>
6. writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address
comments for specific
SCs<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#item06>
- Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------
<trackbot> Date: 27 June 2013
<allanj> scribe: Kim
Face to Face Reminder
Kelly: inquired about rates again
... doing research on other hotels
... will have the information today or tomorrow
Proposed Speech Synthesizer Language Success Criteria
<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html
Jim: have we finished this?
... suggestion that synthesizers should switch voices automatically
Jeanne: we talked about it and Jan suggested to include in another SC, not
sure if we did
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0098.html
Jan: does it clip automatically only in response to a Lang tag?
Kelly: most screen readers today are responsive to the Lang tag
Jeanne: proposal is user has control of it so one step command that will
allow you to switch languages
Kelly: today either the user has no control or they can say turn off that
language switching
Greg: heuristics often fall down when page contains pieces of multiple
languages. Doesn't recognize passages of a foreign language embedded in
something else. That's the main case I can see were having manual control
would be useful. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether it would be
an appropriate AA setting or not
Jim: proposal on the table to add a new SC 1.6.5, Yan said we might squeeze
it into 1.6.1, but then we have whether it's the user or the system itself
that switches it.
... does someone want to take it up or do we want to push it to next
Greg: 161 is A, I don't see it as that critical
Kelly: UAAG next – are we deficient without this
Jim: I could go with next
Jan: we don't put a ton of requirements on them, maybe we can just keep it,
maybe we should remove the requirement about making it easy
<Jan> JR: Suggests this: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech
is produced, the user can change the language (AA).
Greg: I defer to the group – I wish we had some users who actually are more
familiar with this thing – specifically in multilingual situations which I
assume is where it would be most useful.
Eric: W3C specs – try to be judicious about how much repair work they do –
this is a manual repair issue – at least by following the specs involved it
doesn't appear to be presented in the right language so it's a way of
manually repairing the content, or its rendering. That would argue for not
having it as a high priority and just being careful about including stuff
that is sort of...
... repair work
Greg: let's say I speak Swahili, no native support, but I can say use this
module. If that breaks, given the manual override can I access that page
that would be otherwise inaccessible
... my attempts to come up with an example where it might be justifiable
that it would completely block access of the feature was not there
<Jan> JR: Again...in the style of 1.6.1: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If
synthesized speech is produced, the user can change the language, when more
than one language is available (AA).
Jeanne: I thought about that too which is why I didn't propose it as a
level a I think it's more for people with multi-languages and also for
writing as well. If you're composing an email – the ability to command
French for the next sentence is pretty necessary in any multilingual world
<Jan> JR: Again...in the style of 1.6.1: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If
synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available,
then the user can change the language. (AA)
<Jan> JR: 1.6.5 Synthesized Language: If synthesized speech is produced and
more than one language is available, then the user can change the language.
(AA)
<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html
Jim: I'm fine with adding it with a change that Jan proposed
... any objections with leaving intent and examples as they are and using
the Jans new wording
no objections
Jim: are we okay at AA?
<Jan> JR: OK with AA
Jim: not hearing any objections to AA
<jeanne> *ACTION:* Jeanne to add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If
synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available,
then the user can change the language. (AA) and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-840 - Add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If
synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available,
then the user can change the language. (AA) and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html [on
Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-07-04].
resolved: accept 1.6.5 as AA
Proposed "programmatically available" definition
<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0116.html
Greg: sent email about that just before the meeting
<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0121.html
Greg: we need to be more explicit about not excluding – not limiting it to
published
... almost comes off as examples as how it can be done rather than
requiring that
<allanj> proposed: programmatically available
<allanj> Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the
information in different modalities. This means making use of platform
accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models
(DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user
agent can pass on the information (e.g., through...
<allanj> ...the use of ARIA).
Greg: I didn't think that it came across as this is explicit as opposed to
examples
<jeanne> Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the
information in different modalities using platform accessibility services,
APIs, and, in some cases, document object models (DOM). For web-based user
interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the
information (e.g., through...
<jeanne> <allanj> ...the use of ARIA).
Jim: this is similar to the ATAG definition
<Jan> From WCAG2: programmatically determined (programmatically
determinable)
<Jan> determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way
that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract
and present this information to users in different modalities
<Jan> Example 1: Determined in a markup language from elements and
attributes that are accessed directly by commonly available assistive
technology.
<Jan> Example 2: Determined from technology-specific data structures in a
non-markup language and exposed to assistive technology via an
accessibility API that is supported by commonly available assistive
technology.
<allanj> ATAG def -
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG20/#def-Programmatically-Determined
Jan: seems okay, Jeannes change
<allanj> +1 jeanne's change
Eric: use – is the use of the term present or extract and use. Is it about
content that is going to be presented to users or if it's programmatically
determinable, isn't it about any kind of information regardless of whether
it's for presentation?
Jeanne: do we even need that – is this a just about extracting information
Eric: in a way that can be used by other software
Jan: in a way others can make use of it
Eric: not sure it has to be that restrictive or not – maybe it does
Jeanne: are there other ways to be programmatically determined?
<jeanne> Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the
information in different modalities relying on platform accessibility
services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user
interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the
information (e.g., through the use of ARIA).
Eric: do we need programmatically available if we already have something
like programmatically determinable? Is what were trying to get across the
same idea as what WCAG calls programmatically determinable?
... on revision – do we need the phrase in different modalities – makes
sense when we had the word present, but right now I don't know that we need
in different modalities, it's just they are able to extract and use it
<jeanne> Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the
information relying on platform accessibility services, APIs, or the
document object models (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means
ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the
use of ARIA).
<Greg> I will defer to the group, but a developer could still argue that
they comply because, for example, a screen reader can use published API to
get the text and font sizes, and from that can infer the locations of
headings. I'd prefer to use phrasing that incorporates "published,
supported mechanisms", "explicit" and "unambiguous".
<allanj> Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the
information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform
accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For
web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass
on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA)
Eric: no problem adding more of the kind of language that Greg mentions.
<Greg> The "published, supported" phrase was based on experience where
developers would let assistive technology vendors use "undocumented,
unsupported" API as a stop-gap measure, with the caveat that those
mechanisms could be removed at any time, and customers inquiring could not
get technical support because unsupported mechanisms were being used.
Jim: any objections?
Jeanne: do we want to change it to programmatically determined instead of
programmatically available
Jan: keep available
Jim: I like available
Greg: the only thing missing from the latest definition was the unambiguous
and/or not relying on heuristics, that kind of thing. So it would still
allow one to pass if you exposed all the font information, therefore
headers are implied but not explicit
Jeanne: I think we have it covered – we don't have infer anywhere in there
Greg: we are required to expose the headers, but if we don't expose the
headers in any way other than – screen reader would have to recognize that
larger font is headers – does that pass
Jeanne: do you have an idea of what we could use to close that down?
... we wouldn't be able to pass that as an implementation
... I can add a sentence to the intent
Greg: if you put something based on that paragraph for my email into the
intent
<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to add a definition of programmatically
available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the
information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform
accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For
web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<jeanne> agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-841 - Add a definition of programmatically
available: Information that is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and use the
information relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform
accessibility services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For
web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user [on Jeanne F
Spellman -
<trackbot> ... due 2013-07-04].
<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to add to the definition "... something is truly
programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the information
does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be
understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially
fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and
officially supported by the developers of [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<jeanne> the software being evaluated."
<trackbot> Created ACTION-842 - Add to the definition "... something is
truly programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the
information does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way
that can be understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus
potentially fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are
published, and officially supported by the developers of [on Jeanne F
Spellman
<trackbot> ... - due 2013-07-04].
Eric: one quick comment – maybe take out the word truly
Jeanne: I agree
Crowd source implementation - moving forward
Jeanne: temporarily on hold will I get the intellectual property issues –
if people are not on a group and are contributing the rights are ambiguous.
Have to make sure people are contributing everything royalty-free – just
need to figure out the procedure for people to contribute their going to
have to sign something that says I'm not going to try to copyright this
work. I'm giving my work...
... to the W3C. So we can move forward on that one once I get that
straightened out.
... people liked it
Jim: once we get that straightened out we will forward and get people to
contribute implementations if they find them
We have Comments!! Dealing with them
<allanj> http://w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html
Jim: last count there were 114 – more I haven't put in yet
... explaining comment syntax
Greg: one JR: that's missing its number
Kelly: this is very useful and great
Greg: 1.5.1 that's missing its number
Jan: when it's missing its number just give it the next number
Greg: only needed if we need to file a response and extract information
into its own format
... a bunch of on the don't have the :
Jan: in the responses column, generally paste in there is some kind of
highlighting when there is a proposal and then when it's approved by the
group
@@approved with green highlighting or something just to make it easier to
scan the whole list
Jim: start processing these the week after the Fourth of July or wait for
you and Kim to thrash through the editorial ones?
Jeanne: we should definitely get started
Jim: meeting for next week canceled because it's on the Fourth of July
<Eric_Hansen_> Eric needs to sign off
Jeanne: I can do a survey for some of them that are not editorial for next
week, that will get us ahead for the following week. I think a lot of these
we can do with just voting the surveys maybe without a lot of discussion
Jim: any other comments, thoughts, suggestions on comments?
writing tests - while doing comments - write test as we address comments
for specific SCs
Jim: we need to continue writing tests
Jan: anything useful we can borrow for keeping track from ATAG since you
are a step ahead of us?
... I use a lot of @@'s, red, green, yellow
... @@approved etc.
Jim: Jan you had written a test on 2.11.2, Greg wrote back
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0115.html
Jan: answering Greg questions – yes doesn't have to be W3 formats, can be
web formats – flash, PDF. So it comes down to what has the evaluator set
out to do. When they set out to do an evaluation that actually specify the
included technology. The thing might also render plaintext, Word files.
Whatever's in scope
... answering what does contained within the area mean – really are just
areas of the screen, but it's not the most watertight definition
Greg: would they were or would they not be – I couldn't figure it out from
the test
Jan: would what?
Greg: would a script which modifies only a region – the HTML is not
contained to that area, but its effect is contained so therefore does it
count as executable content which would normally be contained to that area
Jan: this is pointing to a hole in the SC really
... I'm good to start with the types of elements that are limits to those
areas, of course those may be generated on-the-fly by a script though
Jim: I'm concerned about this whole, is this something we need to patch in
the SC or is it an edge case hole, or what
Greg: I think it is something which would need to be not ambiguous
Kelly, Jan agree
Jim: this is talking about Java scripting
Greg: it seems like it would need to be clarified in something normative,
either in the SC or a note, not just implementing
<allanj> 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder:
<allanj> The user can render a placeholder instead of executable content
that would normally be contained within an on-screen area (e.g. Applet,
Flash), until explicit user request to execute. (Level A)
<allanj> 2.11.3 Execution Toggle:
<allanj> The user can turn on/off the execution of executable content that
would not normally be contained within a particular area (e.g. Javascript).
(Level A)
Greg: better phrase for contained within a particular area?
<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 2.11.2:
<Greg> Documents that do things automatically when loaded can delay,
distract, or interfere with user's ability to continue with a task.
Replacing executable content like embedded objects, applets and media with
a placeholder tells the user what has been blocked and provides a mechanism
(e.g. a play button) for unblocking when the user is ready.
<Greg> Note: A placeholder should take up the same space as the object it
is replacing, so that the presentation doesn't need to be reflowed when the
execution is started. However, people using mobile devices or screen
enlargers, or those who have difficulty with scroll commands may benefit
from having the option of a smaller placholder.
Greg: you might have an applet which traps focus like flash or it might
fear that it would display content that would trigger an epileptic seizure
or start to make sound or whatever. So you want to be able to postpone the
execution of it until you decide what do you really want to do it or not.
... the other one is you can have a placeholder in the document
Jan: why not change the SC to be before launching put a placeholder there
and have the user have to
Jim: instead of executable content we would say a plug-in, separate from
JavaScript
Jan: may be more easily testable way to break the two up
Greg: sounds promising. In some cases a video is rendered by a nested user
agent, in some cases rendered natively. Unless the placeholder says the
user wouldn't know the difference. It wouldn't apply to the latter case –
is that handled by some other SC?
Jan: yes, there's a video SC.
<Eric_Hansen_> Eric has returned
Kim: this is a case where you would one test for several SC's?
Jeanne: problems with that
Jan: later on you could write another layers that combines them
Jim: summary says it nicely
<Jan> Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution
Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user agents are/are not
activated. Also take into account comments:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html
<Jan> *ACTION:* JR to Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder: and
2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user
agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-843 - Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution
Placeholder: and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that
plug-in user agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html [on Jan Richards - due
2013-07-04].
<jeanne> *ACTION:* Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to existing
SC and check numbering. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Change'. You can review and register nicknames at
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/users>.
<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to
existing SC and check numbering. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-844 - Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate
to existing SC and check numbering. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-07-04].
Greg: the no script extension for Firefox where you turn off a script on a
play-by-play basis is much more useful than doing it globally
... JavaScript is what 2.11.3 is there for – Media
Jim: media is 2.11.1
Greg: the word media in 2.11.3 means they are overlapping?
<allanj> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#gl-speech-config
Greg: looking at June 7 edition
... difference between the June 7 editor's draft and the version used for
the comments document – which is the current one?
... When I built the spreadsheet use the latest published draft
Jeanne: because that's what people commented on
<Greg> This is the version from the 7 June editor's draft: 2.11.3 Execution
Toggle: The user can turn on/off the execution of dynamic or executable
content (e.g. Javascript, canvas, media). (Level A)
Kelly: as we are evaluating a comment we should check that against the
latest editor's draft
<Greg> This is the version from the latest published draft and comments
document:
<Greg> 2.11.3 Execution Toggle: The user can turn on/off the execution of
executable content that would not normally be contained within a particular
area (e.g. Javascript). (Level A)
Greg: the differences in the parenthetical list of examples – we took out
canvas and media, which would obsolete my comment
<Greg> Actually we *added* "canvas, media" to the parenthetical list of
examples since the last public draft.
Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Change summary on 2.11 to make
it accurate to existing SC and check numbering. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action05]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jeanne to add 1.6.5 with Jan's wording: 1.6.5 If
synthesized speech is produced and more than one language is available,
then the user can change the language. (AA) and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013AprJun/0097.html[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to add a definition of programmatically available:
Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software,
including assistive technologies, to extract and use the information
relying on published, supported mechanisms, such as, platform accessibility
services, APIs, or the document object models (DOM). For web-based user
interfaces, this means ensuring that the user [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to add to the definition "... something is truly
programmatically determinable only if the entity presenting the information
does so in a way that is explicit and unambiguous, in a way that can be
understood without reverse-engineering or complex (and thus potentially
fallible) heuristics, and only relying on methods that are published, and
officially supported by the developers of [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action03]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to Change summary on 2.11 to make it accurate to
existing SC and check numbering. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action06]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* JR to Propose rewrite of 2.11.2 Execution Placeholder:
and 2.11.3 Execution Toggle that focus more on the fact that plug-in user
agents are/are not activated. Also take into account comments:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[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, 27 June 2013 20:00:14 UTC