16:41:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ua
16:41:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc
16:41:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:41:42 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ua
16:41:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
16:41:44 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
16:41:45 <trackbot> Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16:41:45 <trackbot> Date: 22 April 2010
16:43:22 <kford> Agenda+ open action items http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/open
16:43:23 <kford> Agenda+ Survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/
16:53:54 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ua
16:58:46 <kford> zakim, code?
16:58:46 <Zakim> the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), kford
16:59:00 <Zakim> WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
16:59:07 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:59:18 <kford> zakim, microsoft is kford
16:59:20 <Zakim> +kford; got it
16:59:55 <Greg> Greg has joined #ua
17:01:24 <Zakim> +Jim_Allan
17:02:05 <Zakim> +Jeanne
17:02:30 <Zakim> + +1.425.895.aaaa
17:03:34 <AllanJ> zakim, aaaa is really Greg
17:03:34 <Zakim> +Greg; got it
17:04:44 <Zakim> + +1.617.325.aabb
17:05:06 <KimPatch> KimPatch has joined #ua
17:05:11 <AllanJ> scribe: allanj
17:05:33 <AllanJ> Chair: KellyFord, JimAllan
17:05:50 <AllanJ> regrets: MarkH, PatrickH
17:06:09 <jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/results
17:06:20 <kford> Survey link http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/results
17:06:33 <AllanJ> zakim, open item 1
17:06:33 <Zakim> agendum 1. "open action items http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/open" taken up [from kford]
17:06:52 <AllanJ> zakim, takeup item 2
17:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'takeup item 2', AllanJ
17:07:03 <AllanJ> zakim, open item2
17:07:03 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/" taken up [from kford]
17:07:12 <AllanJ> topic: 5.1.1
17:08:47 <AllanJ> gl: discusses edits
17:10:44 <AllanJ> ja: MH comment - seems all messages require keyboard input
17:11:04 <AllanJ> kp: stating the obvious is always good.
17:12:02 <AllanJ> kf: do we want to edit now.
17:13:50 <AllanJ> action: kf to rework 5.1.1. comments from survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/results
17:13:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-375 - Rework 5.1.1. comments from survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/results [on Kelly Ford - due 2010-04-29].
17:14:13 <AllanJ> topic: 5.2.1 Form Submissino
17:14:26 <AllanJ> s/Submisssino/Submission
17:16:23 <AllanJ> gl: issues with the SC 
17:16:44 <AllanJ> 2. I find the draft wording of the SC very problematic. For example:
17:16:45 <AllanJ> a. What if there is no submit control and the other method is the only method (e.g. a hotkey or menu item to send)? What about technologies other than HTML where there is no dedicated Submit control?
17:16:47 <AllanJ> b. Could giving the user the ability to require confirmation before submitting or canceling forms be an acceptable alternative to disabling the default method?
17:16:48 <AllanJ> c. The intent paragraph seems to focus almost exclusively on use of the Enter key, but the SC itself is much broader than that; the intent paragraph should address the full scope of the SC in order to justify that breadth.
17:16:50 <AllanJ> d. Why would this be specific to form submissions? Wouldn't the problem be equally bad for, say, cases where the Escape key dismisses a form and causes the user to lose all the data they'd entered? By analogy wouldn't they want the ability to require a specific control rather than responding to the keyboard input when the focus is on other controls?
17:16:52 <AllanJ> e. If there is a submit form control, and the author associates that with a keystroke (e.g. using the accesskey= to associate a key combination with the submit control, using Javascript to cause the Esc key to activate it), pressing that keystroke will activate the control and submit the form regardless of where the focus was in the form. In that case, the implementation passes the SC as...
17:16:55 <AllanJ> ...it's currently worded, despite clearly not meeting its intent.
17:16:57 <AllanJ> f. If this applies only to forms, I can imagine it leading to debate over whether something is or is not a form as developers, authors, or purchasers/regulators try to force or avoid implementing this feature. We do not define forms or submission controls, and while they're clear in HTML, they may not be clear in other technologies (e.g. Canvas with AJAX). 
17:17:36 <AllanJ> kp: 'enter' key is much larger issue that other keys, eg 'esc'
17:18:16 <AllanJ> gl: could rewrite to specifically about the enter key
17:19:38 <AllanJ> kp: with speech you are saying 'enter' and 'touch' a lot to move the cursor or perform action. these are automatic reflex actions.
17:21:40 <AllanJ> this is from UAAG10 5.5 Confirm form submission (P2)   1. Allow configuration to prompt the user to confirm (or cancel) any form submission.
17:22:02 <AllanJ> gl: this is much better and more specific than what we have now.
17:22:49 <AllanJ> technique: Configuration is preferred, but is not required if forms can only ever be submitted on explicit user request.
17:25:03 <AllanJ> also in WCAG 2.0 GL 3.3 Input Assistance: Help users avoid and correct mistakes.
17:25:25 <AllanJ> discussion of issue
17:26:29 <AllanJ> kp: option of a bother box to confirm submission, is useful
17:27:00 <AllanJ> ...but not the same thing as removing automatic form submission
17:27:50 <AllanJ> gl: the goal is good. need to craft the wording so it says what we want it to.
17:28:32 <AllanJ> ... what if no submit control
17:29:19 <AllanJ> ... could say specifically for HTML execute only recognized submit buttons
17:29:41 <AllanJ> kp: how about being able to remap the submit button keystroke
17:29:59 <AllanJ> kf: but 'eneter' is not just for submit' hard to remap
17:31:19 <AllanJ> kf: if focus is not on submit button then the form is not submitted when user hits enter
17:31:43 <patrickhlauke> patrickhlauke has joined #ua
17:32:18 <AllanJ> ... long form scenario, completed required items, just hit enter the skip the other 5 form items, need user preference
17:32:20 <Zakim> +??P10
17:32:31 <patrickhlauke> just joined
17:32:40 <AllanJ> zakim, p10 is really phlauke
17:32:40 <Zakim> sorry, AllanJ, I do not recognize a party named 'p10'
17:32:41 <patrickhlauke> managed to reshuffle
17:33:02 <AllanJ> zakim, P10 is really patrick
17:33:02 <Zakim> sorry, AllanJ, I do not recognize a party named 'P10'
17:33:18 <AllanJ> zakim, ??P10 is really patrick
17:33:18 <Zakim> +patrick; got it
17:35:10 <AllanJ> gl: ok with rewrite for specific form (submitbutton)
17:35:14 <patrickhlauke> sounds +1 from me
17:35:18 <AllanJ> kp: +1
17:36:35 <patrickhlauke> suggested maybe "which keys trigger special/additional actions when entering text in a form" or something?
17:36:47 <patrickhlauke> so it's a bit more generic?
17:38:46 <patrickhlauke> 4.1.7 is a hit for "hotkey" in the document
17:39:03 <Greg> "The user has the ability to redefine the keyboard shortcut for submitting recognized forms."
17:39:40 <AllanJ> pl: are there other situations where auto execution is a problem
17:39:54 <AllanJ> gl: canceling is another one.
17:40:49 <AllanJ> ph: suppose a browser says if user hits 'delete' twice then forms is canceled.
17:41:24 <AllanJ> kp: 'enter' is an overloaded key
17:41:35 <AllanJ> kf: is remapping the way to go.
17:41:47 <Greg> "The user has the ability to redefine the keyboard shortcuts specific for forms for recognized forms."
17:42:38 <Greg> (Ignore that, that was an error from hitting Enter instead of Del!)
17:43:07 <patrickhlauke> happy with it if we just want to keep it narrowly defined (forms/submission)
17:43:12 <AllanJ> ja: suggests UAAG10 wording
17:43:22 <patrickhlauke> if other parts (remapping in general) would take care of other situations
17:43:43 <sharper> sharper has joined #ua
17:44:11 <sharper> zakim, code?
17:44:11 <Zakim> the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sharper
17:45:02 <AllanJ> ja: does UA know when user is in a form, and knows that 'enter' will submit a form
17:45:07 <AllanJ> ph: yes
17:45:27 <AllanJ> proposal: "The user has the ability to redefine the keyboard shortcuts specific for forms for recognized forms."
17:46:30 <Greg> I think Patrick asked if this was already covered. It *might* be covered by 4.1.12 Specify preferred keystrokes: The user can override any keyboard shortcut including recognized author supplied shortcuts (e.g accesskeys) and user interface controls, except for conventional bindings for the operating environment (e.g., for access to help). (Level AA)
17:47:36 <Zakim> +??P11
17:47:45 <patrickhlauke> happy that 4.1.12 covers more generic situations
17:47:47 <kford> The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for automatic form submittal and cancellation.
17:48:03 <patrickhlauke> +1
17:48:07 <sharper> zakim, ??P11 is sharper
17:48:07 <Zakim> +sharper; got it
17:48:35 <AllanJ> +1
17:48:54 <Greg> I'm not sure about using the word "automatic" there.
17:49:45 <patrickhlauke> agree with greg: shortcut covers the rationale that kford used for adding "automatic"
17:49:50 <AllanJ> gl: perhaps shortcut is better.
17:50:02 <AllanJ> kf: delete 'automatic'
17:51:16 <kford> Take 2:
17:51:18 <kford> The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for recognized form submittal and cancellation.
17:51:58 <patrickhlauke> "submittal and cancellation of recognised forms"
17:52:01 <patrickhlauke> +1
17:52:32 <patrickhlauke> "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submittal and cancellation of recognised forms"
17:52:53 <AllanJ> +1
17:53:30 <AllanJ> "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and cancelling of recognised forms
17:53:31 <patrickhlauke> "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and cancellating recognised forms"
17:53:43 <patrickhlauke> oops
17:54:24 <AllanJ> The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and canceling  recognized forms
17:54:44 <patrickhlauke> +1
17:54:47 <Greg> +1
17:54:51 <kford> +1 for making this the SC.
17:55:32 <AllanJ> action: js add 5.2.1 "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and canceling recognized forms" replacing old version
17:55:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-376 - Add 5.2.1 "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and canceling recognized forms" replacing old version [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-04-29].
17:56:34 <AllanJ> action: KP to redo IER for 5.2.1 form submission to reflect new SC
17:56:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Redo IER for 5.2.1 form submission to reflect new SC [on Kimberly Patch - due 2010-04-29].
17:56:48 <AllanJ> topic: 5.3.1 accessible format
17:59:36 <AllanJ> discuss benchmark vs standard
17:59:53 <AllanJ> User agents will provide documentation in a format that is accessible. If provided as Web content, it must conform to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" and if not provided as Web content, it must be in conformance to a published accessibility benchmark and identified in any conformance claim for the user agent. This benefits all users who utilize assistive technology or accessible formats. 
18:00:05 <patrickhlauke> benchmark or standard or guidelines. i'd lean towards guideline, personally
18:00:34 <AllanJ> +1 guideline
18:00:39 <Greg> replace "benchmark" with "standard or set of guidelines"?
18:00:58 <patrickhlauke> +1
18:01:16 <sharper> sh: +1
18:01:23 <AllanJ> User agents will provide documentation in a format that is accessible. If provided as Web content, it must conform to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" and if not provided as Web content, it must be in conformance to a published accessibility standard or set of guidelines and identified in any conformance claim for the user agent. This benefits all users who utilize assistive technology or accessible formats. 
18:01:45 <patrickhlauke> if i may copy/paste my question from the survey right here as well for discussion:
18:01:46 <patrickhlauke> I'm not certain if the wording for the non-Web content bit provides strange loopholes. What if a user agent provides its documentation purely as a braille manual? It's a published, recognised format...but will be of little to no use for deaf users, for instance.  
18:01:48 <kford> +1
18:02:16 <Greg> replace "and identified" with "that is identified"
18:02:38 <patrickhlauke> (sorry currently eating, so don't want to burden the audio call with chewing noises)
18:03:36 <Greg> I agree with Patrck's observation that "accessibility standard" is too broad, but I'm not sure of better substitute
18:04:51 <AllanJ> discussion of (b) accessible platform format: not Web content and conforms to a published accessibility benchmark that is identified in the conformance claim (e.g., when platform-specific documentation systems are used).
18:05:45 <patrickhlauke> limit to electronic (i.e. "documentation in electronic form") ?
18:06:53 <AllanJ> JS: that could be video. how about 'electronic text'
18:07:44 <AllanJ> kf: if I use a telephone only browser that has only an audio manual. how to I make largeprint  out of the audio file
18:07:57 <Greg> I believe to be accessible, documentation has to be available as electronic text that can be reformatted, converted to Braille, etc.
18:08:41 <AllanJ> ...i can call into voice mail and have text message read to me. the system cannot provide it to me in any other format
18:08:54 <patrickhlauke> suggestion
18:09:04 <patrickhlauke> drop the distinction Web/non-web and go for
18:09:05 <patrickhlauke> "User agents will provide documentation in a format that is accessible in accordance with a  published accessibility benchmark and identified in any conformance claim for the user agent. This benefits all users who utilize assistive technology or accessible formats."
18:09:36 <patrickhlauke> as a starting point
18:09:48 <patrickhlauke> and then use example of WCAG 2 for web-based documentation
18:11:25 <AllanJ> kp: if you have a developer, they may want the documentation in a different format
18:12:09 <AllanJ> kp: if you have online help, make sure it complies with the standard.
18:12:15 <jeanne> +1 to not using the term "benchmark" with accessibility guidelines. Benchmark has a different meaning to UA developers. I prefer "guidelines" myself.  
18:12:34 <AllanJ> gl: all documentation should be wcag2 conformant
18:12:47 <patrickhlauke> +1
18:13:35 <AllanJ> kf: change SC and EIR a bit
18:14:18 <Greg> The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level "A".
18:15:15 <patrickhlauke> should we then add, in an example, "if the type of documentation does not fall within the 'Web Content' remit of WCAG 2.0, it should nonetheless aim to follow WCAG 2.0's principles" or something to that effect?
18:15:33 <Greg> I don't think we need to say "At least one version of the documentation".
18:16:36 <patrickhlauke> happy to just keep it focused on WCAG 2.0 compliance of documentation
18:16:40 <Greg> 5.3.1 Accessible documentation: The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" (Level A)
18:16:42 <AllanJ> +1
18:16:53 <sharper> +1
18:16:59 <patrickhlauke> just wondering if we need/want to cover edge cases of products without web content-able documentation
18:17:35 <kford> +1+1 to this.
18:18:08 <patrickhlauke> "if they don't want/can make their documentation available in an electronic form that can't work under WCAG 2.0, then they can't claim conformance for this part" +1
18:18:21 <AllanJ> gl: webable vs electronic. needs to be wcag2 conformant,
18:18:26 <patrickhlauke> I would add "at least"
18:18:35 <patrickhlauke> i.e. at least WCAG 2.0 level A
18:19:06 <patrickhlauke> so if they can go to AA or AAA then great
18:19:07 <patrickhlauke> +1
18:19:18 <AllanJ> 5.3.1 Accessible documentation: The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to at least WCAG 2.0 Level "A" 
18:19:41 <kford> +1
18:19:42 <patrickhlauke> level A (or higher) +1
18:19:45 <Greg> +1
18:20:22 <patrickhlauke> happy with either one ("at least WCAG..." or "level A (or higher)")
18:20:45 <kford> +1 to amending.
18:20:55 <AllanJ> action: JS to add 5.3.1 ">	5.3.1 Accessible documentation: The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" or greater"
18:20:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Add 5.3.1 ">	5.3.1 Accessible documentation: The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" or greater" [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-04-29].
18:21:48 <AllanJ> action: JA to rewrite IER for 5.3.1 to reflect new SC
18:21:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Rewrite IER for 5.3.1 to reflect new SC [on Jim Allan - due 2010-04-29].
18:22:11 <AllanJ> topic: 5.3.2 Document Accessibility Features
18:22:13 <patrickhlauke> my recommended change for 5.3.2 purely minor editorial
18:23:44 <AllanJ> discussion of Greg's - Just a thought: should we require the documentation to address accessibility features that a product lacks? 
18:24:15 <AllanJ> kf: so folks don't look for some function that does not exist
18:24:49 <AllanJ> ph: accessibility features do not exclude users with their particular needs
18:25:07 <AllanJ> kp: the developer has to do something
18:26:04 <AllanJ> kf: as an individual I like it, but can't really see documentation saying this is what we don't do
18:26:52 <AllanJ> action: gl to mashup all of 5.3.2 for next week
18:26:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Mashup all of 5.3.2 for next week [on Greg Lowney - due 2010-04-29].
18:30:00 <AllanJ> kf: gives example of generated content that is not exposed in the DOM or Accessibility API. that should be documents, so the user doesn't try to look for how to access generated content.
18:30:57 <AllanJ> ph: what are the boundaries. this is pretty broad. what is the level of call out
18:31:49 <AllanJ> ... do we need to go through every html and css element to document all the cases
18:32:31 <AllanJ> ... the document would get really long, and be out of date, because technology changes. don't want conformance to be 1 line
18:32:44 <AllanJ> kf: needs to be useful.
18:33:05 <AllanJ> ph: testability of this sc is problematic. 
18:33:31 <Zakim> -sharper
18:34:14 <AllanJ> it seems if developers write what they don't do, then they are including the uaag conformance statement in their documentation
18:34:19 <Zakim> -kford
18:34:22 <Zakim> -patrick
18:34:38 <Zakim> -Jim_Allan
18:34:43 <patrickhlauke> patrickhlauke has left #ua
18:34:52 <Zakim> -Greg
18:34:54 <AllanJ> rssagent, make minutes
18:36:14 <AllanJ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:36:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-minutes.html AllanJ
18:36:31 <AllanJ> zakim, please part
18:36:31 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were kford, Jim_Allan, Jeanne, +1.425.895.aaaa, Greg, +1.617.325.aabb, patrick, sharper
18:36:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ua
18:37:37 <AllanJ> present+kimpatch
18:37:49 <AllanJ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:37:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-minutes.html AllanJ
18:39:30 <AllanJ> present: Kim, Patrick, Greg, Kelly, Simon, Jeanne, Jim, 
18:39:35 <AllanJ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:39:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-minutes.html AllanJ
18:40:30 <AllanJ> s/Submissino/Submission
18:40:37 <AllanJ> rrsagent, make minutes
18:40:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-minutes.html AllanJ
18:41:40 <AllanJ> rrsagent, please part
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-actions.rdf :
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: kf to rework 5.1.1. comments from survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20100420/results [1]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T17-13-50
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: js add 5.2.1 "The user has the ability to redefine keyboard shortcuts for submitting and canceling recognized forms" replacing old version [2]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T17-55-32
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: KP to redo IER for 5.2.1 form submission to reflect new SC [3]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T17-56-34
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JS to add 5.3.1 ">	5.3.1 Accessible documentation: The product documentation is available in a format that conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" or greater" [4]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T18-20-55
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JA to rewrite IER for 5.3.1 to reflect new SC [5]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T18-21-48
18:41:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gl to mashup all of 5.3.2 for next week [6]
18:41:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/22-ua-irc#T18-26-52