Minutes: User Agent Telecon 1 May 2014

from: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 01 May 2014

See also: IRC log  http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-irc>
Attendees
Present[Microsoft], Eric, Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, Jan,
wuweiRegretsChairjimAllan, KellyFordScribeallanj
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. WebTV <http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. Jan - Action 973 - comment
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. MS04 Delineate between content and browser -- 2.3.4 Present Direct
      Commands in User Interface: , 2.2.1 Sequential Navigation
Between Elements:<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. MS05: Examples in the implementation document do not make
      distinction of content, browser, assistive technologies, and OS
(partial)<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#item04>
   - Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Greg to edit glossary entry for
"recognize" to start with a concise definition [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action04]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jallan to review definition of Rendered content [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action03]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jallan to review document for explicit use of UAUI or RC
and report back [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to write a proposal for the response to MS05
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action05]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* JR to Work this text
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html into a
section in the introduction. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Date: 01 May 2014

Main Comment Gateway - http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

Latest editor's draft - http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG20/

<scribe> scribe: allanj

open item 3
WebTV

ww: visiting scholar at MIT, working on WebTV
... second round of use cases, shaping requirements of TV
... considering a11y in WebTV, have some use cases

ja: need more use cases?

ww: yes, need more to help set technical requirements.

js: correction. have no a11y use cases, need some.

<wuwei> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases

<jeanne> 1.1.1 has an example

<wuwei> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/New_Ideas

<jeanne> 1.1.6 has an example of positioning captions

ja: above line for format for use cases

<jeanne> 2.4.5 - alternative content search

ja: timeline for use cases?

ww: end of may deadline

ja: use cases - how user gets speech feedback, or change font size

kf: WebTV, on desktop there is an AT layer and the browser. not so on TV

gl: a closed system, no addition of external AT

<jeanne> SC 1.1.1 Alternative content -
http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_111-e

kf: windows media center. works with nvda, mostly. can read, but not
details...spell words

<jeanne> 1.1.6 Resize and reposition of media alternatives
http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_116-e

jr: if no 3rd party, how to add scanning keyboard to a closed system if
none is built in

kf: this may be beyond our scope

js: been dropping things in IRC of things that must be looked at

gl: we don't have TV examples

js: we have other projects that are more pressing

gl: WebTV should be able to generate use cases from UAAG, not us generating
them

js: possible?

ww: will suggest to webtv to review UAAG to generate use cases
... don't think they will do it.

ja: UAWG will not pursue this as a group, however individuals can submit
their own use cases if they choose to Jeanne

js: can submit the 4 we have discussed.
... has the webtv group looked at an underlying a11y api for basic OS a11y
features

ww: looked at timed text, tuner control

js: not others - font size, captions placement, etc.
... will followup off line

zakim: close item 3
Jan - Action 973 - comment
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html

<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/

jr: orig. comment - remove web based user agent
... proposed response

In order to clarify the relationship between UAAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 (and
ATAG 2.0) UAWG has added 2 new sections to the Guidelines document
Introduction:

-Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and

-Relationship to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

For the following reasons, UAWG continues to believe that keeping web-based
user agents in the scope of UAAG is reasonable:

- from the perspective of users needing accessibility features (e.g. zoom,
media navigation, etc.) it is not always clear whether a user agent is
web-based or native, especially as browsers and operating systems converge.

- UAAG does allow web-based user agents to depend on the base (native) user
agent in order to meet UAAG success criteria, just as non-web-based user
agents can rely on operating system features (e.g. to programmatically
communicate with assistive technology)

- the web-based user agent may be best placed to provide UAAG conformant
functionality. For example a web-based video player may only be serving
small portions of a video to the base browser's video player, so the base
browser would not be able to provide effective navigation of the video.
Similarly, a web-based user agent can zoom its content and keep its own
user interface the same size,...

scribe: saving screen real estate, while the base browser's zoom function
may zoom the web-based browser's user interface, leaving less space for the
content.

Instead of de-scoping web-based user agents, UAWG will identify exemptions
from specific success criteria where necessary (e.g. due to technical
limitations).

js: like it

<kford> I like this, was taking a minute to process all.

gl: wording is technical but makes the right statement
... would add reasonable and important.

<Greg> To "UAWG continues to believe that keeping web-based user agents in
the scope of UAAG is reasonable" add "and important".

kp: +1

ja: this does task us with iding the exemptions

gl: we have been doing this

ja: change last line to " UAWG will continue to identify exemptions from
specific success criteria where necessary (e.g. due to technical
limitations).'

jr: this is a moving target, as UAs push more to other components/objects
in content
... we will continue to update exceptions

close action-973

<trackbot> Closed action-973.

gl: in the bullet items. are they in the document

jr: perhaps change the def of 'web-based UA'

gl: or in the introduction

js: better in the introduction

eh: should it be both.

<Jan> *ACTION:* JR to Work this text
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014AprJun/0014.html into a
section in the introduction. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-974 - Work this text
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2014aprjun/0014.html into a
section in the introduction. [on Jan Richards - due 2014-05-08].

jr: don't think it changes the def. it has been stable for a long time
MS04 Delineate between content and browser -- 2.3.4 Present Direct Commands
in User Interface: , 2.2.1 Sequential Navigation Between Elements:

ms04: There should be clear separation of the guidelines that are
applicable to the browser itself (such as 3.2.2 or 2.3.4) and how it
handles web content (such as 3.2.3 and 2.2.1). In theory, success criteria
applicable to handling of web content should always contain the term
"rendered content" to make this distinction clear. But this is,
unfortunately, not done with any consistency. For...
... example, guideline 2.2 are clearly applicable to browser treatment of
rendered content, but the term never appears in its four success criteria.
This makes it difficult for the audience to interpret the intention of the
guidelines.

<jeanne> Where there are specific success criteria that could be clarified,
please point them out, and we can make an effort to clarify them. Your
example is not quite accurate, as while 2.2.1 does not explicitly say it
applies to rendered content, it does say it applies to recognized enabled
elements, which are defined as being a subset of rendered content. We have
tried to balance out being repetitive

<jeanne> with being clear, and expected that readers would quickly pick up
on frequently used terms such as "elements", just as with "content";
without those the document would not be meaningful

eh: is there an antonym for 'rendered content'

ja: machine readable

js: user interface

jr: ATAG split into 2 halves, UAWG discussed and rejected splitting long ago

eh: do we use user agent user interface vs rendered content

js: we do this

jr: UAAG 10 had something like that.

js: could add classes to help sort the document, rendering vs UAUI
... would be helpful in implementations

<Jan> JR: UAAG 1.0 used this...
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#content-or-ua .... but
not very consistently.

ja: we already use RDC and UAUI,

gl: we say SC apply to both, unless we say otherwise.

eh: where is that located?

UAUI not mentioned until 2.1.6

eh: should it be called out in an applicability note?

jr: what is default assumption?

gl: assumption is SC apply to both, unless we say otherwise

eh: written where? or just our thoughts

js: not sure, a while back we went through the doc to flag UAUI and RC

jr: only a few actually overlap

<scribe> *ACTION:* jallan to review document for explicit use of UAUI or RC
and report back [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-975 - Review document for explicit use of uaui or
rc and report back [on Jim Allan - due 2014-05-08].

<Greg> We should improve the definition of "recognize", starting with a
concise definition before getting into background information.

<Jan> JR: Just noticed "rendered content" just talks about
author-supplied...I can imagine user agent injected content being relevant
here as well

ja: like what?
... like the injection of the mouseless browsing content injection of the
numbers for links

eh: ... may include content injected by extensions etc.
... could have rendered content that the author never touched

jr: help content in chrome are html

gl: content is defined in a w3 format and presented to the user

<scribe> *ACTION:* jallan to review definition of Rendered content
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-976 - Review definition of rendered content [on
Jim Allan - due 2014-05-08].

ja: what about SSL EV green box in address bar, is that RC

jr: sort of, more UA functionality, not necessarily RC
MS05: Examples in the implementation document do not make distinction of
content, browser, assistive technologies, and OS (partial)

<Greg> *ACTION:* Greg to edit glossary entry for "recognize" to start with
a concise definition [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-977 - Edit glossary entry for "recognize" to
start with a concise definition [on Greg Lowney - due 2014-05-08].

seen http://www.w3.org/2014/01/23-ua-minutes.html#item03

<jeanne> Your criticism of the example for 2.2.1 is well taken. However,
the Implementing document is not on the same timeline as the guidelines
document itself, and is not submitted for last call, so if the former needs
more work it is not automatically a reason to hold up the latter.

js: it is a fair point. and would be a major rewrite of all examples.

ja: a review of UAUI and RC should help

gl: need to be more explicit. write the example to say ... could be done by
OS or UA or an AT

js: examples are not complex. an engineer should know what is a UA or OS
function

<Greg> We don't *need to*, but we certainly could, and doing so might make
it easier to use for some UA developers and testers.

eh: UA and platform, allow us to say let the developer determine where a
function should be handled
... conformance, the developer says who does what. We have stated that. Its
someone else's problem for determining this
... should we be clear about including or excluding AT in the conformance
claim

js: comment is only addressing implementation document - non-normative, not
about the conformance claim - normative

eh: is AT part of the conformance claim.

gl: including AT is part of conformance

ja: what is our response?
... UAAG is non-prescriptive to have success on an SC

js: UAWG is trying to make it easier on developers has to how they want to
meet requirements of an SC. AT is a moving target and is rapidly changing.

eh: reviewed conformance wrt AT. no AT mentioned in definition of platform,
and not much mentioned in conformance
... is document explicit about AT place - inside or outside of the UA

<jeanne> UAWG did wrote the examples to be illustrative of common uses by
people with disabilities. In order to avoid being excessively prescriptive
to the browser, we did not make divisions between platform, OS, browser and
assistive technologies, knowing that the field is evolving rapidly, and the
accessibility feature that is on the browser on one device, may be on the
OS on another.

ja: most users don't use AT, so UA need to do as much as possible.

+1 to jeanne proposal

kp: +1

jr: =1
... +1

<jeanne> Assistive technologies may or may not be included in the user
agent, the OS or the platform, so we did not try to define where it would
be located.

eh: AT is external to UA, peoples def of AT is very broad.

<Greg> If we elsewhere clearly distinguish between UA and AT, then saying
"AT may or may not be included in the user agent" seems to contradict that.

ja: we are talking about what is needed to conform to the SC. AT are not
part of UA but they can be included in a conformance claim

eh: conformance need, part h list AT as needed to meet SC as part of the
platform?

<Greg> I have to agree with the original criticism in MS05 about the
example for 1.2.2 "Maria uses a screen reader. When a table lacks marked up
header rows, the user agent gives her the option to have the first row
treated as the table header row." That *is* vague as to what the user agent
is doing. We could say something like "When a table lacks marked up header
rows, the user agent provides an...

<Greg> ...option or command that changes the td (table data) elements in
the first table row to be th (table headings)." This seems like something
that AT would handle, rather than recommending the UA provide this feature,
but this is illustrates how the example (and others) could be made clearer.

js: be careful, navigate by heading should not be passed on to the AT
should be native.

ja: jeanne will write a proposal for our response
... next week we will review what we want to do about making the examples
more clearly reflective of UA abilities in meeting SCs

<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to write a proposal for the response to MS05
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-ua-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-978 - Write a proposal for the response to ms05
[on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-05-08].

<scribe> new browser - Aviator https://www.whitehatsec.com/aviator/

kp: drawing program with novel undo. Concepts...keeps track of all changes,
and remove specific element in the chain of changes. would be great for UA
or platform configuration

[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