See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 22 January 2009
survey results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090120/results
JR: Recommends changes from survey response:
Moving "end user" for grammatical reasons
... also suggesting "user agent" can include the additional functionality
provided by particular plug-ins, extensions, and assistive technologies.
<AllanJ> +1 moving 'end user'
JR: extensions and plug-ins by themselves are not user agents.
A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates END USER interaction with Web content.
The definition applies to Web browsers and media players, whether or not they are Web-based. In addition, at the option of the Conformance Claimant, "user agent" can include the additional functionality provided by particular plug-ins, extensions, and assistive technologies.
<AllanJ> JS: so Firefox could say even though we don't provide heading navigation, we conform with use of a screen reader
<AllanJ> ...it gives them an out and put the onus the AT
JS: including assistive technologies in the definition as a option in the Conformance Claim gives the option that a browser developer could claim conformance by including an AT for conformance.
JR: Then we could define a base browser and specify certain SC requiring the base browser compliance.
JS: Hates the additional complexity
JR: then we have to take assistive technology out of the definition.
KF: How strongly do you feel that if browsers
claimed accessibility with assistive technology do you think it is realistic
in this regulatory environment?
... leave the AT in, but put an Editors Note asking whether it should be in
or not.
<AllanJ> JS: don't see what we gain by including AT
KF: the one thing you gain by including
assistive technology, is if I didn't have JAWS with virtual PC mode, I would
not be able to use the web today.
... Do they fail the guideline if they don't do that?
... some browsers wouldn't be accessible because there is not a screen reader
that has done the virtualizing screen reading for that browser. Does the
browser fail the standard because the screen reader hasn't optimized for that
browser?
... If someone implements the guidelines and then the AT doesn't implement
it, is it the browser not compliant?
<AllanJ> KF: you don't just turn on a11y API and AT works
<AllanJ> ...lots more work involved by AT
KF: even if the AT implements the guidelines,
it just doesn't automatically happen that things work.
... support must be added in the AT.
JR: there are money and politics involved.
... Then we should take the AT out of the definition, so that the user agent
is taking everything to the point where the AT could take over.
<AllanJ> KF: if UA does all requirements of UAAG (api, dom, etc) then AT should be able to make the content accessible
If all the guidelines are met, the Assistive TEchnology will have all the information they need to make the content accessible.
<JR> The definition applies to Web browsers and media players, whether or not they are Web-based. In addition, at the option of the Conformance Claimant, "user agent" can include the additional functionality provided by particular plug-ins and extensions. Assistive technologies are separate from "user agents", but provide important services for certain end users with disabilities.
<AllanJ> JS: AT must be kept out of definition. there are browsers for specific disabilities that are not accessible to folks outside of the specified group.
JA: We keep talking about a definition. Now we
are talking about the Example sentence. We have Jeanne's proposal in the
survey, and Jan's proposal. We could use this in an Understanding document
and lay out these issues because they are really critical.
... I propose using the short definition and lay out the issues in one or two
paragraphs, expanding the definition and implications.
... We can put it in the Introduction, not publishing an entire Understanding
document.
<AllanJ> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates END USER interaction with Web content.
JS: Putting the paragraphs in the definition section and pointing the glossary definition to the Definition section of the Introduction.
<mth> trying to follow with text only. would agree with the short def, as above, with elaboration in the intro or understanding doc.
JS: We are publishing with the definition agreed on Jan 15.
<scribe> ACTION: JS will publish the new draft of the definition in next weeks survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Will publish the new draft of the definition in next weeks survey [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-29].
<AllanJ> ACTION: allanj to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - allanj
<AllanJ> ACTION: JA to create intro expansion of UA definition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Create intro expansion of UA definition [on Jim Allan - due 2009-01-29].
KF: Can we go back to the browser vendors? Aaron Leventhal.
<AllanJ> JS: interest from disability user group
JS: I can go back to some reps from a speech input users group who were interested 6-8 months ago.
JA: I can go back to Opera and follow up on some contacts.
<AllanJ> also RNIB
<mth> apple/ safari/webkit?
<AllanJ> any contacts?
<mth> maybe
<mth> i will ask
<AllanJ> Google?
JR: a lot of people just want this to be done, and want to be able to refer to it. Since this spec doesn't involve writing code, they aren't as interested in participating in this group.
<mth> chromeis webkit, right?
<mth> meaning google chrome is webkit, i think.
<mth> charles chen might be intersting from google.
KF: I think it would be good to get people from other disabilities.
JA: Speech input uses also gets us keyboard functionality.
<AllanJ> JS: connection with anyone in the group but not participating and bring them back
JA: Thanks for Jan for slogging through this.
issue: Someone needs to read through the entire document and identify words/phrases that need a definition.
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-30 - Someone needs to read through the entire document and identify words/phrases that need a definition. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/30/edit .
JA: How do we want to handle this logistically?
JR: there are over 100 definitions.
KF: I suggest putting it out to the list that
we are going to approve the glossary this week, so bring all issues to the
meeting next week.
... we are only going to discuss the glossary items with issues.
<AllanJ> JS: or A - M one week, or N - Z next week
JR: If they were loaded 20 at a time into the survey. That is what ATAG has been doing.
JA: I was proposing that we accept the changes and I add the comments in where they apply and put that into the survey.
<scribe> ACTION: JS will load glossary items into the survey 20 a week, with present and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment to delete it. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-ua-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Will load glossary items into the survey 20 a week, with present and proposed. Sometimes the proposed will be a comment to delete it. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-01-29].
Happy birthday to Jim