Minutes: UAWG telecon 11 July 2013

from http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html
- DRAFT - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 11
Jul 2013

See also: IRC log  http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-irc>
Attendees
PresentJim_Allan, sharper, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Kim_Patch, +1.609.734.aaaa,
EricRegretsKelly, JeanneChairJim AllanScribeallanj
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. Jan proposal for minor UAAG2
comments<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. EO34 <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. comment AR1 <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. comment EO10 &
EO11<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item04>
      5. comment EO12 <http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item05>
      6. comment EO13 & EO
14<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#item06>
   - Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------

<trackbot> Date: 11 July 2013
Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Greg to draft rewrite of
Conformance item 7 "Platform Limitations" to distinguish between those that
qualify for NA (e.g. unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those
that do not (e.g. optional libraries) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 9
"Declarations" to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action03]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* JR to To look at notes in GL and determine if they are
sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* JR to Turn security paragraph in overview into a proposed
note for the programmatic access GL [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action04]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* kim to reword layers of guidance principles bullet point
to include better explanation [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action05] Jan proposal for
minor UAAG2 comments

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0002.html

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

<Greg> How does that differ from
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0002.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

topic EO34
EO34

jr: need to make sure we discuss the intent of notes in the implementing
document.

<Greg> If the examples were numbered, I'd have no objection to putting
parentheticals like "(see example 7)" into the Implementing document where
appropriate.

Resolution: EO34 the editors will consider numbering Implementing notes and
numbering the Examples and cross referencing them as appropriate

<Greg> But just referring people to the whole Examples section doesn't seem
particularly useful. As someone else said, they should go on to read the
examples, and every example is elaborating on something in the document.

Resolution: links to the Implementing document be added for EACH SC. \

<Jan> *ACTION:* JR to To look at notes in GL and determine if they are
sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-845 - Look at notes in GL and determine if they
are sufficiently explained in the implementing doc [on Jan Richards - due
2013-07-18].

<Greg> I think Jan's comment is reasonable that if there's a Note in the
main document that could use further elaboration, we could put such
elaboration into the Intent. However, I'd rather do it on a case by case
basis than to put in paragraphs for every Note.
comment AR1

<Greg> If an application developer *chooses* to use a particular library,
toolset or framework that limits their accessibility, that is not enough to
let the claim a “not applicable due to platform limitations” (NA-Platform)
status, because they could have developed for the same set of users but
using a different library, and thus avoided the limiting factor. They only
get the NA-Platform...

<Greg> ...status if...

<Greg> ...the limitation was imposed by something they could not avoid
without changing audience (e.g. switching from one OS to another, or to
another hardware platform). By the way, will the descriptions of different
Success, Not Applicable, and Fail statuses be included somewhere?

jr: comment suggest that we should not limit to (hardware or software).
... if you review the definition of platform it is clear that platform is
more than hardware and OS.
... remove "(hardware or operating system)"
... re: greg comment - isn't it easier to list limitations

gl: this creates a big loophole, that developer could put inaccessible
stuff in a library, so its not the applications fault, it is a problem of a
library.

jr: need to be clear about what causes the limitation

eh: if developer declares NA due to limitation of the platform, right

gl: choosing a library to use, is critical, they should be held accountable.

jr: you would be partially conforming.

gl: 508 issues. VPAT lets you list your limitations, but not necessarily
fix them
... have not listed categories of PASS, FAIL and NA. we cannot decide this
until we have the categories

eh: we do ask them to provide a rationale for using a limitation.

gl: we have to elaborate on the limitations.

jr: +1

eh: should we list things that are not acceptable as a limitation.

gl: 20 different libraries for widgets and you choose a non-keyboard
accessible library, that was a poor choice, you do not get a PASS or an NA

<Greg> ...because that library was part of your platform, but it was an
*optional* portion of your platform.

eh: do we have the bandwidth to create this listing.
... compare different products. Narrowly defined UA and broad defintion of
Platform. a different product with broad UA def. and narrow Platform def.
might skew the results.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html

Resolution: Review Greg's proposal (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html) as a
shortened bit to add to conformance - as a resolution to comment AR1

gl: what qualifies as platform limitation? this is what is needed for
resolving AR1

eh: example, if you have multiple libraries, only one of which is
accessible. the functionality of the library, has to be part of the UA not
the platform.
... conformance scheme allows declaring the limitation of the UA.
... if you delcare what is related to UA and what is Platform
... if we have rules about what is allowed in the Platform.

gl: Platform limitations are things you cannot avoid or get around. these
are not optional.
... only things you can't avoid are allowed, things that are optional is
not a Platform limitation

jr: makes sense

kim: +1

eh: things that are optional, are not an adequate criteria for making
something a platform limitation

jr: we have a good conformance section. wanted to see how Greg's piece will
fit in to make it more robust..

gl: rewrite paragraph 7 to be more specific about what is or is not a
platform limitation.
... a separate issue, is my previous proposal.

<Eric> Possible language: "If a design choice in platform components is
optional, then a platform limitation cannot make a success criterion
not-applicable."

<Greg> *ACTION:* Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 7 "Platform
Limitations" to distinguish between those that qualify for NA (e.g.
unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those that do not (e.g.
optional libraries) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-846 - Draft rewrite of Conformance item 7
"Platform Limitations" to distinguish between those that qualify for NA
(e.g. unavoidable features of the OS or hardware) vs. those that do not
(e.g. optional libraries) [on Greg Lowney - due 2013-07-18].

<Eric> Possible language v2: "If a design choice in a platform component is
optional, then a platform limitation due to that component cannot make a
success criterion not-applicable."
comment EO10 & EO11

<Greg> *ACTION:* Greg to draft rewrite of Conformance item 9 "Declarations"
to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-847 - Draft rewrite of Conformance item 9
"Declarations" to incorporate the proposed claim codes such as NA-Platform
[on Greg Lowney - due 2013-07-18].

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD-20130701.html

gl: moving the paragraph "some UAAG2.0 requirements..." as a note in
Programmatic Access GL

jr: +1

<Greg> We can move this Note to the beginning of Principle 4 "Programmatic
Access". Its purpose is presumably to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of some
readers who say "this platform accessibility API idea is ridiculous because
it will be a security hole!"

eh: is there a reliance to an underlying security mechanism?

gl: we assume that developers will address security issues when using APIs

<Jan> *ACTION:* JR to Turn security paragraph in overview into a proposed
note for the programmatic access GL [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-848 - Turn security paragraph in overview into a
proposed note for the programmatic access GL [on Jan Richards - due
2013-07-18].

Resolution: Comment AR1 - remove paragraph, reword as a note to be included
in Principal 4, (see action-848)
comment EO12

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130628/#layers_guide

Resolution: comment EO12 - group feels that the section is adequate as is.
comment EO13 & EO 14

suggest - remove information after Principles

Principles - there are 5 high level principles that organize the guidelines.

kim: tend to agree with comment. readers need a better mental map of what's
coming up in the document

<KimPatch> *ACTION:* kim to reword layers of guidance principles bullet
point to include better explanation [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-849 - Reword layers of guidance principles bullet
point to include better explanation [on Kimberly Patch - due 2013-07-18].

rrsagent: make minutes

s/principals/principles

rrsagent: make minutes


[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