Minutes from User Agent WG telecon (1 Aug 2013)

http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html

Attendees

Present
kford, Greg_Lowney, Jan, Kim_Patch, Eric
Regrets
Jim, Jeanne, Simon
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
Greg
Contents

Topics
Action-829 Kim/Eric Proposal
UAAG2 proposed definition of obscure - Jan
Summary of Action Items
<trackbot> Date: 01 August 2013
<kford> Kim - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0007.html
<kford> Eric - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0009.html
<kford> Greg comment - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0014.html
<kford> Kim Proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011OctDec/0108.html
<kford> see discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0015.html
<kford> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130702/
Action-829 Kim/Eric Proposal

<scribe> scribe: Greg
<kford> Kim - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0007.html
<kford> Eric - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0009.html
Kim: Changed because of comment that examples weren't clear enough.
... Tightening, and also suggested replacing "lower" and "higher" with "basic compliance", "strong compliance", and "stronger compliance".
... Because it's ambiguous how "lower" and "higher" relate to more and less.
Eric: Agreed that if there's nowhere else explaining whether A or AAA is higher or stronger, but felt it would be better in the conformance levels section just below this section.
... Re Principle 4, his revision didn't address this because he wasn't as sensitive to that, felt that in the original they stood out in a non-equal way, but wonders now whether just adding a few extra words of comment about each principle so they look more parallel. In Kim's version that he worked from, looks like 1-3 are explained together, making it more work to figure out which section...
... pertains to each one.
... If can make them parallel and provide a bit of explanation for each one, would add to what he did in his revision.
Kim: Think of this section as mental map, with everything explained below in more detail. Thus trying to keep it as terse as possible.
... Have to do something else if we can't nest numbers under numbers.
... The request was that explanations of 4 and 5 weren't clear enough, and we'd gone round and round on that before.
<Jan> Comes from WCAG2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#intro-layers-guidance
Eric: The term "Layers of Guidance" could induce a bit of fear, as they may be wondering what they need to do; wanted to make it clear that it's the success criteria that they actually need to *do*.
<Jan> From ATAG2 http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#intro-organization
Kim: Felt that was done in her version.
... Feel that parts of Eric's proposal that aren't really roadmap can be included in later sections.
Kelly: At the end of the day we have to pick and choose one of these proposals, correct?
Kim: Feel we're going around, as the job was to make a small change...
Kelly: Prefers what Kim did at this point, with a few refinements being discussed.
Jan: Layers of Guidance is in ATAG, who got it from WCAG. They got comments, which Kim addressed a few of those. Feels those are good. Eric has some good things, but don't really want to look at a full rewrite.
Kim: Also changed "lowest" and "highest", which was an additional suggestion, and we should decide whether to adopt those.
... Those appear several times in the document, so we'd change throughout to "basic conformance", "strongest conformance".
Greg: I'd like to see how those would work in context.
Jan: ATAG and WCAG use highest and lowest.
Kim: This wasn't a public comment but her own suggestion.
Jan: Might have been better if writing from scratch, but...
Eric: Inclined to stay consistent with the other documents.
Kim: Good with that.
Jan: strongest etc. might be better, but it's valuable to stay aligned with ATAG and WCAG.
Resolved: keep the terms "lower" and "higher" instead of changing to "basic compliance" and "stronger compliance"
Greg: At a high level, I'd rather see us spend conference call time on normative content.
<KimPatch> ACTION:JS take kims revision of Layers of Guidance, put lower and higher back, put last liine in levels section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action01]
UAAG2 proposed definition of obscure - Jan

<KimPatch> ACTION: JS take kims revision of Layers of Guidance, put lower and higher AA descriptions back to original, put last liine in levels section below [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-856 - Take kims revision of Layers of Guidance, put lower and higher AA descriptions back to original, put last liine in levels section below [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-08].
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JulSep/0019.html
<scribe> ACTION: JR to define "obscure" to allow transparent backgrounds but also raising the possibility of separation where screen real estate is available [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-857 - Define "obscure" to allow transparent backgrounds but also raising the possibility of separation where screen real estate is available [on Jan Richards - due 2013-08-08].
Obscure:
When the onscreen rendering of a visual element prevents another visual element from being visually perceived.
Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available it is more effective to avoid overlapping visual elements that are both of interest to the user.
ED.: Since we now allow transparency in the SC, we can remove this Note from 1.1.4: "Note: Depending on the screen area available, the display of the primary time-based media may need to be reduced in size to meet this requirement."
Eric: Suggest "For the on-screen readering of a visual element, to prevent another visual element from being perceived", making it a verb phrase because the term is a verb.
Jan: "Prevent" is a verb.
Eric: But it says "prevents".
Jan: Defer to the group.
Greg: It's entirely editorial so I'd defer to the editorial subcommittee to work it out.
... My only concern about the definition itself is that allowing use of transparent background reduced, but does not eliminate the obscuring of content. If the SC requires eliminating it, this is using a definition to radically change the meaning. It would be better then to change the SC itself to say "reduce the amount of obscuring" instead of eliminating it.
1.1.5 Display of Alternative Content for Time-Based Media:
For recognized on-screen alternative content for time-based media (e.g. captions, sign language video), the following are all true: (Level AA)## DONE 2 August 2012
@@ 855 - definition of obscure
Don't obscure controls: Displaying time-based media alternatives doesn't obscure recognized controls for the primary time-based media; and
Don't obscure primary media: The user can specify that displaying time-based media alternatives doesn't obscure the primary time-based media; and and
Use configurable text: The user can configure recognized text within time-based media alternatives (e.g. captions) in conformance with 1.4.1.
Note: Depending on the screen area available, the display of the primary time-based media may need to be reduced in size to meet this requirement.
Jan: The SC says "doesn't obscure" which can be read as "doesn't obscure at all"...
Greg: I'm not really favoring changing the SC to merely "reduce obscuring", but that is effectively what the definition does.
... It's saying "it's okay for to obscure the media with text, but not with an opaque background behind the text" as an example. Seems like a subjective matter of degree.
Jan: Makes sense, but runs into the real world where if you're not allowed to obscure it at all, you may have to shrink the primary media, which is also a form of obscuring it.
Greg: True.l
s/True.1/True./
Jan: Perhaps one of those cases where there's a loophole but explain in Intent.
... We still have the AAA one that requires repositioning, to entirely avoid obscuring (other than shrinking).
... (That doesn't use the word obscure.)
Greg: In fact, it's more that the Note contradicts the definition.
<KimPatch> To render a visual element in the same screen space as a second visual element in a way that prevents the second visual element from being visually perceived.
Jan: It doesn't conflict because the definition rests on perceivability. It is dependent on the individual.
... I do like Kim's rewrite.
Eric: I do, too.
Jan: Note that background can obscure foreground, not just the other way around.
Greg: Fine with Kim's rewrite as well.
Kim: the definition is just about visually obscuring, should the term be "visually obscure"?
<kford> ack, gl
<Jan> Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available it is more effective to not overlap visual elements that are both of interest to the user.
<Jan> Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available it is more effective not to overlap visual elements that are both of interest to the user.
Greg: I'm noting that in my opinion this Note is irrelevant because it discusses how to reduce obscuration, whereas the definition says that one must "avoid", not "reduce", it. However, I can live with it.
Jan: We'd need to adjust the SC for that. Give me a week to work on it.
Resolved: accept the glossary entry as worked out on the call, and Jan will work on the SC 1.1.5 (Display of Alternative Content for Time-Based Media) to clarify it's about reducing rather than entirely avoiding obscuring content.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to add definition of "Obscure" to read "To render a visual element in the same screen space as a second visual element in a way that prevents the second visual element from being visually perceived. Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-858 - Add definition of "Obscure" to read "To render a visual element in the same screen space as a second visual element in a way that prevents the second visual element from being visually perceived. Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available... [on Jeanne F Spellman -
<trackbot> ... due 2013-08-08].
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: it is more effective not to overlap visual elements that are both of interest to the user." Also edit SC 1.1.5 to link to the definition.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to Reword 1.1.5's do-not-obsuring requirements to take into account the more relative defn of obscure that has been accepted [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-859 - Reword 1.1.5's do-not-obsuring requirements to take into account the more relative defn of obscure that has been accepted [on Jan Richards - due 2013-08-08].
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/commentsWD.html
Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to add definition of "Obscure" to read "To render a visual element in the same screen space as a second visual element in a way that prevents the second visual element from being visually perceived. Note: While the use of transparent backgrounds for the overlaying visual element (e.g., video captions) is an acceptable technique for reducing obscuration, if space is available... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to define "obscure" to allow transparent backgrounds but also raising the possibility of separation where screen real estate is available [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Reword 1.1.5's do-not-obsuring requirements to take into account the more relative defn of obscure that has been accepted [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JS take kims revision of Layers of Guidance, put lower and higher AA descriptions back to original, put last liine in levels section below [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JS take kims revision of Layers of Guidance, put lower and higher back, put last liine in levels section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/01-ua-minutes.html#action01]

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:22:50 UTC