Minutes: User Agent telecon 22 May 2014

from http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 22 May 2014

See also: IRC log  http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-irc>
Attendees
Present[Microsoft], Greg_Lowney, Jeanne, Jim_AllanRegretsEric,
JanChairjimAllan,
KellyFordScribeallanj
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. Use Case 1 -5 <http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#item01>
   - Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

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

<trackbot> Date: 22 May 2014

regrets Eric

rrsagent: make minutes

<scribe> scribe: allanj

at the end of last meeting we had a brief discussion about 1.4

and restructuring to make basic customization A with a browser UI and

then AA or AAA stuff be user CSS

gl: when can UA comply with SC with writing user agent CSS
... there has to be a user CSS available to claim compliance if user style
sheets are necessary to comply

js: ??? isn't that content

gl: not if provided by the UA.
... or an extension that provide CSS UI

js: Readability - extension to FF to change font info and line spacing

<Greg> I'm thinking that a user agent can never claim compliance based
solely on providing the capability of adding an extension or user style
sheet; they can claim compliance only if an extension or user style sheet
that demonstrates compliance actually exists and is readily available to
users.

<jeanne> actually a bookmarklet

<Greg> A user style sheet that provides global changes (e.g. bolding all
links in all documents) could be considered an extension, rather than
*merely* content.

js: this is really interesting. and would help with lots of websites

<Greg> Of course, this brings up the long-standing question of to what
extent an extension must be discoverable, what hoops the user has to go
through to obtain it, whether it costs extra money, etc., to still be
considered sufficient to make the user agent compliant.

ja: still concerns about extensions to meet SC. UA changes, ext. doesn't
work, author does not update...perhaps if UA's maintained extensions

<Greg> I would not like a user agent to claim compliance relying on a
third-party extension or style sheet that's only available on some obscure
university web site, while the user agent manufacturer makes no effort to
raise awareness of it.

js: come up with a proposal to keep extensions up to date and readily
discoverable. Could be an SC or in Compliance

gl: appropriate in Compliance, not sure how to put in SC.

js: if in conformance then in Introduction with own heading, so it stands
out.

ja: with a note on SC that say Extension

<scribe> *ACTION:* Greg to write conformance/ introduction extension
existence discover-ability and life span [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-980 - Write conformance/ introduction extension
existence discover-ability and life span [on Greg Lowney - due 2014-05-29].

<jeanne> gl: also include the ease of installation of the extension

<Greg> Similarly, if a user agent only supports one user style sheet at at
time, that would not be sufficient for compliance because it would make a
style sheet for one SC incompatible with style sheets for other SC, and for
other user needs.

<Greg> The same would be true if there was a limitation on how many
extensions could be installed, although we have not seen that in practice.

<jeanne> That should go into 1.7

<Greg> Similarly, it would not be sufficient for a user agent to support
only a limited set of developer-supplied style sheets.

<scribe> *ACTION:* Jim to create or modify an SC (1.7x) to allow for
multiple user stylesheets. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-981 - Create or modify an sc (1.7x) to allow for
multiple user stylesheets. [on Jim Allan - due 2014-05-29].

<Greg> We should probably edit 1.7.4 to clarify that the second sentence is
a requirement, rather than merely a comment. ("The user can save copies of
the stylesheets referenced by the current page. This allows the user to
edit and load the copies as user stylesheets.")

ja: we have no SC pertaining only to extensions. Should we?

open item 5

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

from Jan

- everywhere they mention "tablet" it might be better to say "Mobile
device" or "Table/Smartphone"

- use case: ability to view captions only on a second device
(Table/Smartphone)

- use case: ability to hear secondary audio channel only on second device
(Table/Smartphone)

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

a closed system, no addition of external AT

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

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

looked at timed text, tuner control, font size, captions placement, etc.
Use Case 1 -5

it is assumed that the Tablet has AT installed, that the web interface from
the settop box is written to support existing W3C accessibility Standards

<Greg> In Use Case 1, it's assumed that the "service discovery application"
is written to conform with accessible design guidelines, and that the
tablet on which it's running has assistive technology installed or
built-in, and that the combination of the two allows users who have
disabilities to use the application to complete the steps in the scenario.

<Greg> If the service discovery application is web-based, then it must
comply with WCAG, and the browser must comply with UAAG.

<kford> Reading through all of these much as GL is saying I think the
fundamental assumption is that the user gents comply with UAAG and all
content with WCAG.

<kford> On my read I don't see places where these use cases or the APIs
that would be needed are changing data or adding or removing from it. They
seem to be about commmand, control and such of the information.

<kford> But I think the question is for all of this onscreen viewing, where
is the accessibility coming from? If not this group who's defining that? Us?

<Greg> If the process of the user "turn(ing) on the Content Service on
Tablet" requires user permissions (e.g. entering a password), that process
may be implemented by the operating system rather than the browser, in
which case it is another component that must been accessible design
guidelines. For example, a secure login screen may not be compatible with
third-party assistive technology due to...

<Greg> ...security restrictions, and thus must be made self-voicing and
have other, similar, accessibility features built-in per requirements for
"closed systems".

kf: these are close systems. there must be some accessible interface.
built-in or external device to interface with closed-system
... content must comply with WCAG
... any user agent provided must comply with UAAG

gl: if something has Full Screen Mode, then how is interaction supposed to
happen with an on-screen keyboard user.

ja: Use Case 2...An overlay is triggered to invite the subscriber to
explore the city of San Francisco further on the Tablet...how is
information that appears on the TV screen communication in an accessible
manner to the user? does this 'overlay' also appear on the tablet?

can you change the fontsize of stuff on the TV? is the information Spoken

<Greg> An example of accessibility issues would be that if an API allowed
something to request full-screen mode, it has to accommodate assistive
technology that needs to remain visible. For example, a web app requests to
go full screen, then queries the size of the viewport it has been given,
rather than assuming that it has actually received a viewport the size of
the physical display.

@@ is the tablet the Remote control

<Greg> "Channel Bounded Application: It is a web application that provides
contents related to the current broadcasting channel. This application is
terminated when the user changes to different channel." (from
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Terminal_Use_Cases)

<Greg> Re use case 7, "channel bounded applications" are started and closed
automatically as you change channels. If you had to do something in your
assistive technology to either respond to a new application opening, or
configure your AT to interact with that application correctly (per your
needs), you may have to do repeat that process every time you switch back
to a channel. That could be...sub-optima

<Greg> l, compared with having the channel bound application remain
running, and merely hide itself when not needed.

<Greg> Other examples would be if the user needed to reposition or zoom the
bounded application's window.

<Greg> Note that switching *applications* should not cause channel-bound
applications to be hidden or shown, as the user may need to move focus to
an assitive technology utility in order to read, view or control the
channel-bound application.

meeting ended early
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Greg to write conformance/
introduction extension existence discover-ability and life span [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jim to create or modify an SC (1.7x) to allow for
multiple user stylesheets. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/05/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]

[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