- From: Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:30:09 -0400
- To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5411EA31.7010707@redstartsystems.com>
UAAG Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html
Text of the minutes:
W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
11 Sep 2014
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-irc>
Attendees
Present
Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, Jim_Allan, Kim_Patch, kford, Jan
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
KimPatch
Contents
* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#agenda>
1. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources
document <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item01>
2. approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation.
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item02>
3. Revisions to Abstracts
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item03>
4. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources
document <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item04>
5. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item05>
6. any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources
document <http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item06>
7. consensus to publish
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item07>
8. what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#item08>
* Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<trackbot> Date: 11 September 2014
any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document
<kford> JS: Any comments/ objections to Jan's comments?
<kford> Sorry, that was JA:
Greg: are those going to link to definitions to the glossary or there
are some
... don't think there's an entry for configuration settings
<kford> GL talking about some having glossary entries and some not.
Jan I can write a little section explaining what they are
<kford> JR: Maybe we need a section talking about what these are.
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0095.html
Greg: user interface doesn't work the way we define – is this just shorthand
Jan: I can fix these up
Jeanne: are you thinking a paragraph that would go in the introduction?
Jan: yes, explaining levels of conformance and things like that
Jeanne: I would put it right after using levels
Zakiim, take up next
approve greg's spellcheck and sequential navigation.
<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html
<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0093.html
Jeanne: where we ended with the last call was Greg was going to update
language
<kford> Group reminding itself on the topic.
Greg: Mostly editorial. The third sentence of the definition.
<jeanne> http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#def-element
Greg: I took the element type out and moved that into its own bullet
item. Also made examples lists parallel
Jim: objections or comments?
<kford> JS: Is everyone good with GL wording?
+1
<kford> I am fine with it.
<Greg> The correct third sentence should be "UAAG 2.0 also uses the term
"element" more generally to refer to any discrete unit within the
content (e.g. a specific image, video, sound, heading, list, or list item)."
<jeanne> RESOLUTION: accept Greg's wording of the definition of element
and element type
Greg: second email about spellchecking
... I greatly increased the amount of intent
<kford> JS reading wording.
<kford> JS reading wording.
<kford> JA: That works.
<Greg> Here is the revised text for 3.2.3 Spell Check that we approved
on last week's call, and suggested expansion of its Intent section (the
first paragraph being untouched, everything after that being new):
<Greg> 3.2.3 Spell Check: The user can have spelling assistance for
editable text in rendered content. (Level AA)
<Greg> Intent of Success Criterion 3.2.3:
<Greg> Users with various disabilities benefit from spell checkers. The
ability to check spelling is particularly important for users with
disabilities such as dyslexia that significantly increase the likelihood
of misspelled words. Spellcheckers also alert blind and low vision users
to errors in text entry.
<Greg> Spell checking is only expected in editable text in content, most
commonly text input controls and form fields. It is not required on text
input fields that are part of the UA user interface, such as an address
bar or File Open dialog box. Spell checking is also not required on
static, read-only, or disabled text elements, controls, and fields in
content, except when they display...
<Greg> ...text the user can edit indirectly (e.g. static text that the
user can alter using nearby buttons), or when the user agent is in an
authoring mode that allows the user to edit text that would otherwise be
static.
<Greg> Spell checking should be available regardless of how the text was
entered. For example, text may be entered by the user typing, pasted
from the clipboard, initialized by the content (e.g. the HTML value
attribute), set programmatically by scripts or assistive technology, or
filled in by a feature of the user agent itself (e.g. auto-complete).
<Greg> Spell checking which highlights unrecognized words as they are
entered is preferred over requiring the user to use a separate tool or
editing pass.
<Greg> Spell checking should be optional, so that it can be avoided by
users who find it too distracting, or for whom the highlighting makes
the text less legible.
<Greg> Note: It is recommended that user agents also provide assistance
with grammar, as well as spelling. Grammar can pose more difficulty than
spelling for people with some cognitive disabilities or whose native
language is signed.
<kford> Group looking for consensus.
<kford> On GLs writing.
<kford> Resolution: Group accepts GLs writing.
Revisions to Abstracts
<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0098.html
<kford> JS: Went through some comments on abstract.
<kford> JS reads the text again.
<Greg> I'd prefer something replace "applications that retrieve and
render web content" as that's not strictly true (they don't have to do
both), but since this is non-normative it's probably okay.
<Greg> Editorial, but second paragraph would match the order things are
in the document if best practices comes between Intent and Examples, as
we include best practices in the Intent section, before the Examples
sections.
<kford> Resolution: Group accepts editorial changes to abstract.
any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0099.html
<kford> JR: This wil be a new section under using levels.
Jan: these are the definitions of the five tags. I still need to write
the intro sentences
... look back at ATAG and they didn't have it – hard to define
Greg: persistent or single session only?
Jan: that's larger than this
Greg: the note about recognized seems to come out of the blue.
Jan: they're just straight cut and paste from the glossary
Greg: seems a shame to just repeat them
Jan: I could just say when success criteria is applicable to the user
interface and link that
... will come back with that shortly
what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria
Greg: discussing running link check
Jan: some talk in the document about implementing – self-referential,
changed that?
<kford> KP and GL and JS working out how to ensure linking worked correctly.
<kford> JA: Asking if we absolutely have to do this?
<kford> Group agress to hold off on doing this extra verification.
any comments on Jan 'Applies to:' addition to the Resources document
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0100.html
<kford> JR goes over his changes.
Jeanne: I like the intro paragraph
<kford> JS says she likes as does GL.
<kford> KF likes also.
<Greg> Looks good.
+1
<kford> KP likes.
Jan: the tag would go here into the applied to session with the
appropriate bullet and then within the appropriate bullet if there's a
defined term that term would go out to the definition
<kford> Can ne of you write, maybe Jan, exactly what you just said.
Jan: linking inside those bullet points
Jeanne: I can put anchors on each of the five bullets – what's linked
Greg: make these things in the applies to block link to this applies to
section, then my script will see it's already a link
<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to global replace the terms in each Applies To
section to the Intro bullet points, and then link the Intro bullet
points to their definition, if applicable. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1035 - Global replace the terms in each
applies to section to the intro bullet points, and then link the intro
bullet points to their definition, if applicable. [on Jeanne F Spellman
- due 2014-09-18].
<Greg> The key is that "UA user interface" will always be a link: if
it's in an Applies To block it will link to the bullet item in the
Applies To section of the Intro; otherwise it will link to the
definition in the glossary.
Jeanne: are we done making changes to the document and are we ready to
publish it?
<jeanne> *ACTION:* jeanne to add the Applies To section to the
Introduction [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1036 - Add the applies to section to the
introduction [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2014-09-18].
Greg: is the stabilization draft a technical term?
Jan: no, it's just within the working group the one we think is right
before the final one
Greg: so we are publishing it but not as the final working draft
consensus to publish
Jeanne: what we want is for people who commented on the last draft to
say okay I'm good with my comment. That's the purpose of this draft.
Then we can go to the next phase..
<kford> JS: Does anyone object to publishing?
<kford> All respond with no.
<kford> Resolution: Group agrees to publish the next draft of UAAG 2.0.
<kford> RESOLUTION: Group agreed to publish next draft of UAAG 2.0
refernece.
what's next, implementations, tests, testing criteria
Jeanne: here's the plan – we are going to publish with the minimum of
time limit for comments that we are allowed to, which I believe is three
weeks. Also on the day we publish I will be sending out emails to all
the people who commented asking them to approve our changes based on the
comments.
<AllanJ>
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html
<kford> Jeanne can you send minutes and such?
<kford> I would agree 100%. Outsiders would be bored completely with
testing writing in this space.
<kford> That was test writing.
Jeanne: still work to do – at least a week before publishing
... next week starting with writing tests
... we could use the same method as MATF with the wiki grid set up so we
can see which are done, which are needed to be done and who is working
on them
Summary of Action Items
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to add the Applies To section to the
Introduction [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action02]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* jeanne to global replace the terms in each Applies To
section to the Intro bullet points, and then link the Intro bullet
points to their definition, if applicable. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-ua-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.138 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2014-09-11 18:24:47 $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[End of scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
diagnostic output]
--
___________________________________________________
Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems, Inc.
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com
www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly
Blog: Patch on Speech
+Kim Patch
Twitter: RedstartSystems
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 18:30:20 UTC