minutes: User Agent telecon 17 July 2014

from: http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html

DRAFT - User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 17
Jul 2014

See also: IRC log  http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-irc
<http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-irc>
Attendees
Presentkford, Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Jan, Greg_LowneyRegretskim, ericChairJimAllan,
KellyFordScribeallanj
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
      1. SH06 4.1.7 <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item01>
      2. CA01 summary GL3
      <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item02>
      3. CA02 3.1.1 <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item03>
      4. 3.1.1 a <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item04>
      5. CA03 3.1.1 b <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item05>
      6. CA04 3.2 <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#item06>
   - Summary of Action Items
   <http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

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

<trackbot> Date: 17 July 2014

<scribe> scribe: allanj

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

discussing timing issues.

jr: testing is difficult, don't know where the delay is coming from.
... propose remove this SC

<kford> +1

jr: +1

<jeanne> JS: +1 to delete

ja: +1

kim has issues with the timing. large problem with speech input. Kelly -
yes it is an issue but the UA has no control of those timing issues.

gl: support consensus of the group

*RESOLUTION: remove SC 4.1.7 from the document*
CA01 summary GL3

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

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0006.html

jr: we need to review the summary- SC agreement after comments are done.
CA02 3.1.1

jim comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0007.html

gregs's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0011.html

jan's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0015.html

<Jan> ARIA politness levels
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#liveprops
3.1.1 a

jr: concerned about a specific SC for a technology. we already have SC to
implement features of a technology so the UA should already be handling ARIA

current: a. Recognized messages that are low priority

proposed by CA01: a) Messages and content that are non-essential or low
priority for the user

<Greg> Yes, we could reword the SC to remove content, making it only about
UA UI, and add a Note stating that the equivalent with regard to content is
covered by the other SC.

<Greg> That is, with regard to recognized low-priority notifications in
content.

jr: how do we determine UA low priority messages from UAUI

kf: ARIA politeness is set by author. screen readers read aria messages
from content though not from the UA

jr: testing issue...do I have to wait until the next UA update to test.

<Jan> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/Implementing-UAAG20/#sc_311

jr: seems that our example

""Shirley has a cognitive disability and is distracted by the page flicker.
A web page has a stock market ticker that is coded as having a WAI-ARIA low
priority level, so she changes the browser's preference setting to indicate
that regions with low priority level should not be automatically updated."

scribe: this may be changing the meaning of WCAG SC

jr: what is the fails for this?
... Acrobat Viewer, open a pdf file, it opens but inoperable, because of a
pop under window, requesting an update.

gl: open a Word doc, the message pops up that macros are disabled but
needed for the document to work?

<Greg> It seems that the "don't ask me this again" is separate from the
"low priority" issues.

gl: this type of message vs the don't ask me again

jr: don't keep asking me for the same type of decision

ja: "do this always' do this only once

gl: settings - turn on and off certain types of notifications

jr: where you have asked for a decision, there is some mechanism to not
repeat asking.
... what constitutes a stupid question. in W2013 if you have a doc not from
your computer it asks about opening and macros

ja: how do we test this. there are messages we are so used to seeing that
we ignore, or have permanently dismissed. how do we find them. there are
likely dozens

jr: perhaps drop this. not testable.

js: commentors want it more strict, we are saying to drop it.

jr: thanks for calling it to our attention. but in group discussion we
determined we could not test this.
... its a usability issue.

js: the COG TF wants it to me more strict

the addition to this SC is b)Messages, features and content that are not
part of the core use-cases for the content.

ja: there is no way the UA can know what is the core use-case for the
content.

kf: drop the entire thing 3.1.1

js: should keep b. Information in the user agent user interface that is
being updated or changing and c. Rendered content that is being updated or
changing

jr: UAUI changes - media player with a moving progress bar, should a user
be able to turn this off.
... need compelling use cases

js: will yield to group concensus

kf: this is a tough issue. am sure there are good use cases; we need to
find how to test it.

gl: we know what we can recommend but what to require is a different thing

kf: browsers are making their interfaces more simple

jr: need testing requirements

js: how to test for the messages; what is important; what can be avoided;

Jim will talk to COGA and invite to group
CA03 3.1.1 b

current text: (b) Information in the user agent user interface that is
being updated or changing

comment CA03: CA03: Also we think it needs to be easy to do this - not just
possible. So maybe add To ensure that it is easy to avoid or defer this
content it should: Be not more then two steps, Such as: One step to select
avoid or defer them and a conformation step. Only simple and clear text and
symbols should be used in controls to avoid or defer this content Controls
to avoid this type...

scribe: of content should be positioned above or next to the content that
it refers to. Also the group is working to identify semantics that would
make it possible to handle this as an adaptive interface at the user end.
If this becomes possible and is supported, then it would be an acceptable
alternative to make sure the Messages and content that are non-essential or
low priority for the user...
... and Messages, features and content that are not part of the core
use-cases for the content can be programmatically identified.
CA04 3.2

Suggestion: Filling in information is much slower and harder for people
with cognitive disabilities. Therefore: Information should be easily
retrievable such as via automatically saving the work so far. The user
should be able to go back a step without losing what they have submitted.
People with cognitive difficulties often have very low confidence in the
accuracy of what they are...
... submitting and therefore the ability to review and amend easily is
important. Also authors and agents should never try to confuse the user.
For example, the users original selection / choice / offering should be
selected by default not switched to the item they want to up-sell , such as
expensive options being placed before the cheaper option that the user
thinks they are selecting....
... (Obvious but worth spelling out anyway...). An example of this would be
AVG antivirus that switches the user to premium edition and leaves it to
the user to switch back. We would like to include: The original
offering/selection should be selected by default and should not be switched
automatically to an alternative If this is not acceptable maybe include:
Label any alternatives clearly...
... Make it easy to select the original offering: The original offering
should be positioned above or next to the alternative The original offering
should be sized the same or bigger then the the alternative In the future
we may have the semantics that would make it possible to handle this as an
adaptive interface at the user end. If this becomes possible then it would
be an acceptable...
... alternative to make sure the original selection can be programmatically
identified.

**Discussion: this sounds like usability. The product sellers have arranged
the content base on user studies to maximize 'conversion'. If and when
semantics are available, and authors use them; browsers may have control
over the display of the semantic elements. Until then, browsers cannot
control this type of information.

Propose: not accepted.

<jeanne> I think this is mostly content, and not user agent

gl: some is about content, however...

jr: we don't have an SC for saving form content for later use.

gl: go to the same page, and have a page repopulated.

js: what about dynamic content?

jr: saving form entries for later reuse is not a bad thing

ja: what about save page as? I can recall the saved page and copy and paste

gl: not good enough, must auto fill

<jeanne> LastPass has extensions for major browsers that allows you to set
up profiles for form data. https://lastpass.com/

COG comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2014Feb/0000.html

<Jan> *ACTION:* JR to start a draft SC re: saving certain form inputs
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-999 - Start a draft sc re: saving certain form
inputs [on Jan Richards - due 2014-07-24].

<scribe> *ACTION:* jim to tell Cog-TF that UAWG is dropping 3.1 as not
testable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1000 - Tell cog-tf that uawg is dropping 3.1 as
not testable [on Jim Allan - due 2014-07-24].

rrsagent: make minutes

<jeanne> RichS would be the perfect person to ask about it, as he is also
an ARIA expert

repurposing aria politeness such that thing marked as off should not be
live updated visually.

rrsagent: make minutes

rrsagent: make minutes
 Summary of Action Items *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jim to tell Cog-TF that UAWG is
dropping 3.1 as not testable [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* JR to start a draft SC re: saving certain form inputs
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/17-ua-minutes.html#action01]

[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