- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:43:42 -0500
- To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=z1Wk31x5vgThf-wd6aPrGZZfeT68kdOUgjZ6NnyB5cT1jbg@mail.gmail.com>
from http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html
next week finish SH06 and pick up the CA
- DRAFT - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 10
Jul 2014
See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-irc>
Attendees
Presentjim, kelly, jan, greg, kimRegretseric, jeanneChairjimallan, kellyford
Scribeallanj
Contents
- Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
1. rewrite of 1.10.1
<http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#item01>
2. SH05 Principle 3
<http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#item02>
- Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------
<trackbot> Date: 10 July 2014
code is 82941
rewrite of 1.10.1
proposed:
1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from
explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the
following (Level AA):
* label for a control or image (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and
aria-labelledby attributes)
* caption for a table
* row and column labels for a table cell
<scribe> scribe: allanj
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0014.html
jr: concerned about HTML mentioned in sc
ja: fine with leaving HTML out, just use label element
gl: in 2.3.3 we say landmark - this is a generic term, unless we qualify by
saying aria-landmark. we should be clear
jr: we should do it same way through out document
<Greg> Similarly, Summary of 2.6 uses "onmouseover" without explaining it's
an HTML etc. attribute.
gl: fine with leaving out the example, assume it will be explained in
implementing document
<Greg> I'm okay omitting the entire parenthetical e.g. and explaining it in
the Implementing document. I just tend to include parenthetical examples,
perhaps too often.
proposed:
1.10.1 Access Related Information: The user can access information from
explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the
following (Level AA):
* label for a control or image
* caption for a table
* row and column labels for a table cell
ja: any objections?
none heard
gl: examples need to go in the implementing doc
<scribe> *ACTION:* jeanne add 1.10.1 1.10.1 Access Related Information: The
user can access information from explicitly-defined relationships in the
content, including at least the following (Level AA): * label for a control
or image * caption for a table * row and column labels for a table cell
with these examples " (e.g. HTML label element, figcaption and
aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-996 - Add 1.10.1 1.10.1 access related
information: the user can access information from explicitly-defined
relationships in the content, including at least the following (level aa):
* label for a control or image * caption for a table * row and column
labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. html label element,
figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing doc [on Jeanne F
<trackbot> ... Spellman - due 2014-07-17].
close action-995
<trackbot> Closed action-995.
<Greg> Chatzilla really should not bold text after an asterisk if it's
followed by a space.
<scribe> *ACTION:* jeanne to revise IER for 1.10.1 to match the new wording
of the SC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action02
]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-997 - Revise ier for 1.10.1 to match the new
wording of the sc [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-07-17].
<Greg> I note that the Intent for 1.10.1 explicitly mentioned use of id and
child elements, neither of which apply any more except in very limited
cases (e.g. aria-labelledby).
SH05 Principle 3
For the understandability principle, then isn't this a little all
encompassing. There is nothing about simple language usage or graphic usage
for people with a learning disability. So my question is understandable to
whom?
<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/
jr: we have requirement that web-base user agents follow WCAG (simple
language) AAA
... had the same issue of ATAG, a11y of the platform based tool. is there a
higher bar for web-based that platform-based.
... we used the 'key' parts of WCAG for the platform-based tools. Perhaps
UAAG should do the same.
gl: do we need to add new SCs to cover understandable.
ja: perhaps the issue is with the term "understandable"
<Greg> I doubt it's feasible for us to add a bunch of new SCs for
understandability at this point.
jr: wcag could/should apply to software
<Jan> FYI http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#understandable
kp: is the issue that Principle 3 is too broad
... P3 is an organizing principle, though it is not all encompassing
gl: simple language for interface
kp: is it more or less important in WCAG or UAAG. seems more in WCAG.
... putting all of WCAG in UAAG would clutter the document. UAAG has chosen
the bits we felt important
jr: what if in 5.1 we put a note that non-web UAs look at WCAG for
interface design.
<Jan> oops call dropped
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/
kp: if remove the part in 5.1.1 about web-based UA and just make it UAs,
and point to wcagict
<Jan> 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: User agent user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0
success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level
AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and Level AAA to meet
WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)
<Jan> Note: To understand how this success criterion applies to
non-web-based user agent user interfaces, refer to Guidance on Applying
WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT).
gl: if you want to test FF for new 5.1.1... are we going to create use
cases for every wcag SC to apply to UAs
jr: ATAG relies on wcag tests
gl: this scares me
jr: did you have a concern about old 5.1.1 for web-based UAs
gl: not sure there are any tests for WCAG2ICT
jr: re: evaluation methodology is out.
<Greg> I assumed that the old 5.1.1 was testable because W3C had approved
test cases for WCAG on web content, but probably not for WCAG2ICT.
jr: no tests for WCAG2ICT compliance.
gl: what tests will UAWG have to create to allow developers to meet 5.1.1
(proposed)
ja: sounds like there are no tests.
jr: excellent point
... in the end, UAWG was trying to make some guidelines that go beyond
basic software accessibility.
... ok with leaving 5.1.1 as it was and not accepting SH05
ja: +1, we covered what we thought was important in Principle 3
gl: leaving 5.1.1. as is easiest course of action. otherwise a big can of
worms. are there other reasons than covering Understandability
jr: will we create unintended new requirements base on the convergences of
UAAG and WCAG
ja: add a note to principle 3 that UAWG chose the following to cover
Understandability of the UA. If the developer wants to go further review
WCAG2ICT for guidance.
gl: what about adding a note to 5.1.1 also. seems more appropriate.
jr: note only on 5.1.1 not principle 3
<Jan> 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the
WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success
criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and
Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)
<Jan> Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user
agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user
agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is receommended
that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces refer to
Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications
Technologies (WCAG2ICT).
ja: +1
kp: +1
ja: any objections?
<Jan> 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the
WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success
criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and
Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)
<Jan> Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user
agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user
agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended
that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the
Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications
Technologies (WCAG2ICT).
<Greg> Take out "developers of"?
<Jan> 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the
WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success
criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and
Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)
<Jan> Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user
agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user
agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended
that non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the Guidance on
Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
(WCAG2ICT).
<Greg> ("Non-web-based user agent user interfaces" is such a horrible
noun-stack.)
<Jan> Back to...
<Jan> 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Web-based user agent user interfaces meet the
WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success
criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; and
Level AAA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria)
<Jan> Note: This success criterion does not apply to non-web-based user
agent user interfaces, but does include any parts of non-web-based user
agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems). However, it is recommended
that developers of non-web-based user agent user interfaces follow the
Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications
Technologies (WCAG2ICT).
<Jan> JR: +1
<Greg> GL: +1
<scribe> *ACTION:* jeanne to add to 5.1.1 Note: This success criterion does
not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any
parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems).
However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user
interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information
and Communications... [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-998 - Add to 5.1.1 note: this success criterion
does not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does
include any parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g.
help systems). however, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based
user agent user interfaces follow the guidance on applying wcag 2.0 to
non-web information and communications... [on Jeanne F Spellman - due
<trackbot> ... 2014-07-17].
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Technologies (WCAG2ICT). replacing old note.
jr: calling out UAUI in this doc may diminish the impact of 5.1.1 note,
seems contradictory
gl: example?
jr: 2.1.5 & 2.1.6,
... 215 says UI, 216 say UAUI but say the same thing other wise
gl: note in 511 doesn't address comment about understandability
http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG-LC-Comment/
gl: graphic usage or simple wording.
<Greg> Simon gave two examples of where Principle 3 failed to address
aspects of understandability: simple language, and graphics as alternative
to text. The note on 5.1.1 might address the first (in a roundabout way),
but what about the second?
jr: it does. WCAG lots on wording, pronunciation, etc. nothing about
graphics
... media alternative for text
... but, no requirement for media as an alternative for text.
<Greg> If WCAG uses the term Understandability without addressing people
who cannot read, then I guess we can, too. (Although of course it would be
nice not to ignore those issues.)
jr: UAAG cannot go further than WCAG on media replacement for text. see
cognitive task force
response - UAAG accepts, added note to 5.1.1, to encourage developers to
incorporate WCAG into the process. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that
were feasible and important
scribe: include text of the note.
<Jan> Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already
requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a
note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow
WCAG 2.0. UAWG chose items in Principle 3 that were feasible and important.
<Greg> "While there are aspects of understandability which are not
addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were
both important and feasible."?
Response: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1 already requires
web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also added a note to
5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to follow WCAG 2.0.
While there are aspects of understandability which are not addressed in
UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were both important
and feasible.
<Greg> Just softening it a bit, acknowledging that he's in fact correct
about his original observation.
*RESOLUTION: Response to SH05: UAWG partially accepts. We note that SC5.1.1
already requires web-based user agents to meet parts of WCAG 2.0. We also
added a note to 5.1.1, to encourage non-web-based user agent developers to
follow WCAG 2.0. While there are aspects of understandability which are not
addressed in UAAG20, UAWG chose to include items in Principle 3 that were
both important and...*
... feasible.
Topic SH06 4.1.7
is about making API Calls be timely such that delays aren't perceived by
users, but this is difficult if the software interfaced to us not timely,
people may the perceive a delay. I think this needs to be a little more
explicit.
4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchanges Timely: For APIs implemented to satisfy
the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed at
a rate such that users do not perceive a delay. (Level A)
ja: does this need specific timings... .5 seconds
jr: depends on computing environment
gl: not more explicit about time, but about APIs that are causing problems
that are beyond the control of the UA
<Greg> I think Simon's saying, not that we need to be explicit about a
minimum time delay, but that the UA is not held responsible for delays
outside of its control. For example, if the UA API function call the OS
which takes a half second to return, that is not violating 4.1.7 because
the UA did not itself introduce the delay.
<Greg> How about "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs
implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that (the user
agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that
users would perceive the delay. (Level A)"
<Greg> That is, "4.1.7 Make Programmatic Exchange Timely: For APIs
implemented to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 2.0, ensure that *the user
agent does not introduce delays into* programmatic exchanges such that
users would perceive the delay. (Level A)"
kf: this is useless without metrics.
kp: timing issues are huge with speech
kf: this is about how quickly an AT can build a list of UI elements
gl: well, AT queries UA, and the call returns (that is the cycle time)
ja: how do we test this. how do we know whose fault it is.
kf: we should remove this.
... after further reflection this is not a testable criteria. General
software performance suggests developers should be doing this anyway
kp: timing kills speech. timing cascades build and cause problems
kf: those delays are not caused by inter API communication
... IE with narrator - ask for list of UI elements, can take SECONDS. but
the problem is not IEs fault.
kp: are you sure the UA never has anything to do with timing
<Greg> I am a little concerned that some UA may implement accessibility API
in an inefficient (slow) way because it's implemented solely to comply with
a requirement, rather than actually to address the needs of users who rely
on assistive technology.
kf: this is not testable. what is the appropriate number.
... 300 milliseconds
jr: need to test api call and screen reader processing.
kf: the causes of this are not the UA, they cannot fix it.
... fine if we leave it in.
rssagent, make minutes
Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne add 1.10.1 1.10.1 Access
Related Information: The user can access information from
explicitly-defined relationships in the content, including at least the
following (Level AA): * label for a control or image * caption for a table
* row and column labels for a table cell with these examples " (e.g. HTML
label element, figcaption and aria-labelledby attributes)" in implementing
doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to add to 5.1.1 Note: This success criterion does
not apply to non-web-based user agent user interfaces, but does include any
parts of non-web-based user agents that are web-based (e.g. help systems).
However, it is recommended that developers of non-web-based user agent user
interfaces follow the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information
and Communications... [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-ua-minutes.html#action03]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to revise IER for 1.10.1 to match the new wording
of the SC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/10-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
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 18:44:07 UTC