- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:00:13 -0400
- To: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
HTML minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to modify the introductory paragraphs in
the User AGent definition in response to Greg's suggestions in
Survey of 28 February #1
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to update section on Relationship with
WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey AND
confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the user.
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to update the Conformance introduction to
"This section lists requirements for conformance and
conformance claims."
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to work with greg to set up a wiki page on
use cases.
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne with make sure that the capitalizaiton in
Conformance Requirements section is consistent with WCAG
Conformance.
Text of minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14 Mar 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-irc
Attendees
Present
Greg_Lowney, +1.609.734.aaaa, Kim_Patch, Jeanne, Eric,
Mark_Hakkinen
Regrets
Jim_Allan, kford, Jan
Chair
Kim_Patch
Scribe
Greg
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Recharter
2. [5]conformance survey
* [6]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 14 March 2013
<scribe> scribe: Greg
Recharter
<jeanne>
[7]http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/draft_uawg_charter20130227
[7] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/draft_uawg_charter20130227
<jeanne> survey <-
[8]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130312/
[8] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130312/
<jeanne>
[9]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130312/results
[9] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130312/results
We have 3 "Agree" and 3 worried about the Last Call deadline
being too aggressive.
<jeanne> jeanne will fix LC to July 2013 and change Q2-> Q3 in
milestones and Q3 -> Q4.
Greg: Generally the farther out we push it the better I'd feel,
but if the group wants to try for July we'll try.
Eric: Feels July is ambitious.
Jeanne: We really need to try finishing the document by July.
Kim: Agreed that we need to push it up to avoid letting things
slide.
Resolved: Last Call date to be set as July.
conformance survey
[10]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results
[10] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130225/results
Jeanne: These came from a work session she and Kim did a few
weeks ago, trying to incorporate some very good text that came
in through various proposals even if it didn't really fit in
the conformance section.
1. Changes to the "Definition of a User Agent" from the
Introduction
Greg: In the definition, the phrase “*and* facilitates end-user
interaction” could be an issue, because if people interpret
“interaction” as two-way, the definition would exclude, for
example, software that displays web-based slideshows but
doesn’t allow users to interact with them.
Jeanne doesn't fee that's an issue, since there's always UI
interaction at least for the person who sets it up.
Eric: Also tripped up over the word "and" in several places in
the document.
... Also not sure whether "render" is always required.
<mhakkinen> +q
Eric: We have to decide whether rendering is required. Also may
need to change the definition of rendering.
Jeanne: Would changing "and" to "or" solve the problem.
Kim: and/or?
Jeanne: Avoid and/or because ambiguous.
Greg: Is an anti-virus filter (proxy) which strips out
supposedly malicious links from HTML but then passes it on to
the browser to render, a user agent, even though it doesn't do
any rendering itself?
... I suggest I would want purchasing agents to require
anti-virus filters to comply with applicable SC, and thus be UA
for this purpose.
Mark: Also thinking about embedded Webkit-style components
being embedded in apps, where interaction not in the component
but in UI wrapped around it, and thus the component is
providing some measure of UAAG conformance is delegating
interaction to another layer.
... Suggest changing "and facilitates" to "or enables".
Jeanne: remembers discussing earlier and deciding on
"facilitates" over "enabled".
Greg: If we use "or" then wget would be a UA because it
retrieves, even though it does not render or facilitate
interaction, and that does seem wrong to me.
Jeanne: is there a problem with being too inclusive?
Eric: 1) Judy's concerned about the guidelines being
appropriate for full-function browsers, 2) also complexity
arising from thinking of all combinations of capabilities, 3)
challenge of developing defensive critieria for special-purpose
and limited UAs. Prefer to limit it to full-function browsers
by requiring all three.
<mhakkinen> +1 to Eric's comment on a second document.
Eric: Thinks they do apply but we don't have time to specify
how to make them work on a wider range of components.
<mhakkinen> +q
Resolved: Keep it "and".
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest "or" instead of 'and'
Mark: Bandying about idea of W3C Note style document on
understanding and applying UAAG to user agents.
... Could start on a Wiki article based on W3C Notes,
addressing this topic.
Jeanne: Need to add that to our scope in the Rechartering
document.
Kim: Great idea.
Mark: Will send Jeanne rough draft text/notes to help choose a
title to put in the Rechartering document.
Greg: The rest of my comments on this were purely stylistic, so
Jeanne and Kim can work on them offline.
2. Proposed Introduction: Relationship to WCAG
2 agree, 1 disagree, 1 suggestions.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to modify the introductory paragraphs
in the User AGent definition in response to Greg's suggestions
in Survey of 28 February #1 [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-806 - Modify the introductory
paragraphs in the User AGent definition in response to Greg's
suggestions in Survey of 28 February #1 [on Jeanne F Spellman -
due 2013-03-21].
Jeanne: Could link to Jan's comments here.
Eric: Should not link to unstable documents, only other
official W3C documents.
... Made comments in other Word document instead of the survey
form, because it had been having trouble saving data.
... Concern about "application might not be considered a user
agent". Seems we need to be more specific about what is and is
not, then allow the reader to apply the criteria. Makes no
sense to say something "might not be considered".
<jeanne> jeanne thought he was referring to link to the Note
that Mark was proposing, not Jan's comments. The text in this
section that is being proposed originated from one of Jan's
proposals.
Eric: Regarding "non-web-based applications", while the term is
in the Implementing document, it's not prominent in the
Guidelines document, and so is not or should not be involved in
the conformance criteria. Worried about bringing up concepts
not important to the conformance criteria.
... This is non-normative here, so adds unnecessary complexity.
... Hard to see how the first sentence and the remainder relate
to each other.
Greg: I wrote a proposed rewritten paragraph in the survey.
Jeanne: Why the last sentence about internal data?
Greg: Because I don't think we should require all XML used by
the app to comply, only that which is involves the user.
Eric: True, if never rendered to the user then UAAG20 doesn't
apply, but if it's rendered to the user then it does.
... Do we have SC requiring data rendered to the user to
conform with WCAG?
Jeanne: Does WCAG specifically exclude data not exposed to the
user? We don't want to introduce anything in our document that
has an impact on WCAG.
Jeanne will work on this offline.
3. Use Cases
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to update section on Relationship with
WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey AND
confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the user.
[recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-807 - Update section on Relationship
with WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey
AND confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the
user. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
Re Greg's suggestion that we include examples of things that
are and aren't covered by UAAG.
Eric: Virtually nothing in this list shows up in Conformance,
and since we have no taxonomy of things that are likely to
benefit from UAAG, and different types of user agents, his
inclination is to limit it a lot, and have another document
(such as the note that Mark mentioned) that goes into more
detail.
... Don't bring up distinctions that don't show up in the
conformance scheme. No requirement that they indicate which
type of user agent they have, and thus this is all
non-normative commentary which may be useful if we address the
wide range of software to which UAAG can be useful, then this
is useful, but concerned about bringing in distinctions not
reflected in the Conformance part....
... Don't burden with unnecessary distinctions.
Discussion of how this section is not intended to be in the
final document, merely to help us test proposals against this.
Jeanne: Our intention when we started was just to apply to
full-featured web browsers, but the web and needs have changed.
To the extent we can, would like to make this document
inclusive. WCAG can be useful outside of web content. Part of
recent push to open up UAAG have been in response to market
pressure that people want to use UAAG beyond just browsers. We
also need to open applicability...
... beyond major browsers to be able to find examples of
compliance.
Eric: If conformance section gets unmanageably complex, may
tell us it's time to stop. Could say "if you have this kind of
software, then this set of SC won't apply".
Jeanne: Sounds simple but very difficult to implement, as
software keeps evolving.
Kim: Many "partial browsers" are in use now.
Greg: Don't favor limiting scope to full-featured, stand-alone
browsers, as more and more applications incorporate UA
functionality.
... Don't want loopholes where an app can sell to the
government by stating they're not a full-featured, stand-along
browser.
Greg and Jeanne will work on setting up a Wiki page on use
cases early next week.
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to work with greg to set up a wiki page
on use cases. [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-808 - Work with greg to set up a wiki
page on use cases. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-21].
4. Conformance
<jeanne> +1 to Greg's survey edits
Greg suggested changing "This conformance section describes
conformance and lists the conformance requirements." to "This
conformance section lists requirements for conformance and
conformance claims."
Even better " "This conformance section lists requirements for
conformance and conformance claims."
"This section lists requirements for conformance and
conformance claims."
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to update the Conformance introduction
to "This section lists requirements for conformance and
conformance claims." [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-809 - Update the Conformance
introduction to "This section lists requirements for
conformance and conformance claims." [on Jeanne F Spellman -
due 2013-03-21].
5. Conformance Requirements
We noted that Eric has comments in a separate document sent in
January, which are not reflected in this survey.
Eric: Some stylistic comments, e.g. capitalization of "Level
A".
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne with make sure that the capitalizaiton
in Conformance Requirements section is consistent with WCAG
Conformance. [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-810 - With make sure that the
capitalizaiton in Conformance Requirements section is
consistent with WCAG Conformance. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due
2013-03-21].
Greg: should be consistent with other WAI documents.
<jeanne> Resolved: The group agreed that Confonformance
Requirements suggestion is accepted as is.
Jeanne: Eric can put his comments into the survey form for next
week, as the technical problems did not apply to this survey.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to modify the introductory paragraphs in
the User AGent definition in response to Greg's suggestions in
Survey of 28 February #1 [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to update section on Relationship with
WCAG based on the conversation and comments in the survey AND
confirm how WCAG handles data that is not rendered to the user.
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to update the Conformance introduction to
"This section lists requirements for conformance and
conformance claims." [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to work with greg to set up a wiki page on
use cases. [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne with make sure that the capitalizaiton in
Conformance Requirements section is consistent with WCAG
Conformance. [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/14-ua-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 19:00:18 UTC