W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > October 2013

Minutes: HTML A11Y TF Teleconference, 31 October 2013

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:16:46 -0400
Message-ID: <52729E8E.3040505@w3.org>
To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>

The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 31 October 2013 are available in HTML and plain text below:




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

              HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

31 Oct 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-irc


          Mark_Sadecki, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, paulc,
          Suzanne_Taylor, Adrian_Roselli, Jatinder Mann,
          Rich_Schwerdtfeger, John_Foliot, Jay Munroe




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]REMINDER: Everyone is asked to rejoin the HTML-WG
         2. [5]calendaring
         3. [6]canvas
         4. [7]plan for longdesc
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 31 October 2013

   <trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

REMINDER: Everyone is asked to rejoin the HTML-WG

      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Oct/0001.html

   <paulc> Deadline is Nov 14.

   <paulc> First day of F2F in Shenzhen.


   <JF> +1 (JF could be)

   <paulc> Paul is not available. Already in China.

   regrets for next week from MarkS

   CN: plan is that there will be a meeting, I will chair
   ... the weekend of TPAC there will not be a meeting
   ... there will be a meeting the week of 11/21 there will be a
   meeting and Janina will chair
   ... 11/28 there will not be a meeting
   ... There will be a meeting the first week of Dec.

   <chaals> ACTION: chaals to post meeting dates for next month...
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Post meeting dates for next
   month... [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-11-07].

   <paulc> The WG will not be meeting the two weeks after TPAC ie
   Nov 21 and Nov 28 there will NOT be meetings.


   CS: continue discussion RE canvas in 5.0 vs 5.1 and to
   introduce Jatinder

   JM: I have been on IE team for many years. Helped implement
   canvas in IE9 and am an editor of the canvas spec
   ... wanted to talk about at risk items in canvas. Hit regions
   and focus rings. IE11 does not support these features and we
   will not until a future version.
   ... our proposal RE: hit regions is to move them out to the 5.1

   RS: we actually have implementations for Chrome on Mac and Win
   and in Firefox. They do not use Path objects

   JM: would be interested in seeing examples of those. Interested
   in how that is going to work without Path objects.

   RS: Shape object seems to be the new approach. Can get location
   information of object on the screen.

   JM: If I can't describe a region on the canvas to focus on, how
   is that accomplished.

   RS: you have a current path. assigning that path to the object.
   in chrome, you draw your objects, have a path. no focus, does
   not render. allows magnifier to zoom in on those objects. agree
   we need a path, but not necessarily a path object.

   JM: without specific path object, its the current path.
   ... very much interested in pursuing a feature here. have had 3
   versions of IE that support the drawing features of canvas. i
   wonder if its worth moving the at risk stuff to the 5.1 spec.
   not stop implementations, but the goal to 5.1

   RS: i understood that these would be a 5.1 feature. However, we
   need ability to drive magnification today
   ... could be a couple years out before we see a solid plan for

   <paulc> What does Rich means " it was agreed upon"?

   PC: when you said it was agreed upon, what were you referring

   RS: it was agreed that we were going to push the path object on
   to 5.1.

   PC: who? the TF, the WG?

   RS: PLH and Rik Cabinier at F2F. Cant' get it done for 5.0,
   push it to 5.1
   ... we have discussed this on previous calls.

   PC: I would like to encourage the TF to decide how they would
   like to proceed with the current at-risk features.
   ... we have to go back to Last Call. I would prefer that if we
   are going to take things out, we take them out before we go
   back to LC

   RS: we discussed this on previous calls that path is coming
   out. that can come out for LC
   ... working to get two implementations of drawCustomFocusRing
   and drawSystemFocusRing without the Path object.

   ST: at Pearson, eduPub, everyone is moving away from Flash and
   Flex and moving towards canvas, so focus rings for driving
   magnification is very important to us in the ePub industry

   PC: Would like the TF to reach consensus on what they want
   pushed to 5.1

   RS: does anyone object that anything related to path get pushed
   to 5.1?

   CN: we have to have a formal call for consensus.
   ... so you would like to get consensus that focus ring items
   will remain in the spec, but anything related to path be taken
   out of this LC

   <Suzanne_T> ST: It's also necessary to have a focus ring that
   matches the browser's ring for visual design


     [11] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/

   <paulc> Revised Editor's draft:

     [12] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/

   PC: longer list of at risk items in the current editors draft
   ... path objects and all their methods. hit regions, all
   attributes of text metrics except width.

   RS: when did focus rings get added to this list?

   PC: there was a lot of discussion on the editors list. Chairs
   encouraged editors to come up with list of items with solid
   ... to be finalized when Rich gets back from vacation.
   ... need to know which of these items the TF wants to remain at
   risk and what should move to Level2
   ... sounds like anything related to path objects get moved to
   Level2. focus rings stuff will remain at risk because you
   believe they will be implemented.

   RS: as far as hit regions go, you need a path for that, so move
   to Level2
   ... ellipse would have to go to level 2
   ... same for text metrics
   ... so its just focus rings that don't require path objects

   CN: so you want the a11y TF to say that focus rings should stay
   in the spec as at risk because we think it will be implemented.
   ... for the other things, if these other items are important to
   a11y, we will suggest they move to level2
   ... the question is, are we happy to bump any of this to Level2

   PC: yes, indicate moved to Level2, no position or remain at
   ... as soon as possible

   <chaals> ACTION: chaals to frame the questions as outlined by
   Paul for a TF CfC [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Frame the questions as outlined
   by paul for a tf cfc [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due

   JM: I'd love to see a test page to see focus ring without path
   ... to see if its useful on its own


     [14] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/accessible_canvas_clock.html

   RS: I think it would be nice to have a path object, but I see
   no one willing to implement it and we cannot wait for it since
   a hook for mag users is critical for a11y of canvas
   ... there is not consensus in the browser community RE Path VS

   CN: my inclination is to test the consensus of the TF over the
   next week.
   ... are the draw focus rings methods without path valuable
   enough to implement

   CS: rich can you describe how this currently works?

   RS: when you do drawing in canvas you have a current path.
   these functions, draw systemFocusRings, passes an object passes
   it to element, uses the system color/style to draw a focus
   ring. location info gives the bounding location info in the
   AAPI. when you use keyboard, you can focus on object and draw
   ring around it.
   ... custom focus ring is similar, if system has high contrast
   focus ring, otherwise it passes it off to author to draw the
   focus ring

   JM: the main thing I wanted to understand was what happens when
   canvas has multiple elements.

   RS: this element is in fallback content.
   ... which is mapped to AAPI
   ... when those items in fallback content can receive focus, i
   can give it a location.

   JS: I think we identified which features we are comfortable
   pushing to Level2. want the timeline for this to be sufficient
   that we can get these at risk items implemented.

   PC: the current charter says that canvas is to come out of CR
   in this quarter.
   ... this decision is up to the working group. I understand the
   sentiment. chairs have been working hard to figure this out.
   ... plan is to take it back to LC, minimal LC, if there are
   features still at risk, come back to CR, WG to determine how
   long that would last.


     [15] http://wps.pearsoned.com/wps/media/objects/13909/14243253/Patterns_System_Focus_ring.htm

   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/accessible_canvas_clock.html
   Accessible Clock Demo that demos focus rings

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/accessible_canvas_clock.html

   CN: suzanne says system focus rings are critical, jatinder says
   it may not be worth it without path
   ... ask that the canvas timeline be long enough to make
   implementations possible.

plan for longdesc

   CN: we have finished our Last Call, we received 3 negative
   comments on the proposed resolutions. Others are supported.
   Will deal with negative responses.
   ... there are factual errors in the arguments presented.
   ... should come to resolution soon.
   ... next steps:
   ... my proposal is to drive the spec to a standalone
   recommendation (or as far as it can get with dependencies).
   ... we can mark this as done.
   ... ask HTML WG to make the decision regarding folding it in or
   ... what is the actual process for an extension spec? do we
   pass it back to the HTMLWG are we responsible for walking
   through the process, etc?

   <paulc> "plan 2014" explains the answer to Charles question

   PC: Plan 2014 says that if you want to fold back in, you need
   to get to CR and plan to exit CR before ??? the TF would then
   indicate that they wanted it back into HTML5
   ... your proposal to take to spec to rec and then roll it back
   in was never the intention.

   JB: the question is even if we want to reintegrate it.
   ... process is already well spelled out.

   JB: question RE wanting to integrate it or not get more
   complicated as we get to later versions of the spec when use
   cases are still not properly understood.

   JS: i do want to underscore what Judy says. I have a strong
   concern of controlling when a longdesc attribute is obsoleted.
   There may be in time when we will be happy to see this happy,
   but controlling the timing on that is important

   JS: I would like to see it go to recommendation. Propose to
   maintain it separately for that reason

   CN: the process of what spec is definitive is what the most
   recent one is. And we have the ability to rescind
   ... do we want to, as a TF, make a stand alone spec. we appear
   to be well ahead of HTML at this point.

   <JF> bye all

   <chaals> [My final comment (for the record): I am not too
   troubled by the risk of the HTML WG at some future point doing
   something bad to longdesc - the TF will continue to exist, and
   if it happens we will just have to go through the same process
   as we have of taking up the issue again and dealing with it...]

   <Judy> [Judy's comment after Charles exited call -- this seems
   like just the beginning of the discussion. Will need more.]

   <chaals> [FWIW I agree with Judy on that - what we got sofar is
   just a (potentially not even representative) sample of views]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chaals to frame the questions as outlined by Paul
   for a TF CfC [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: chaals to post meeting dates for next month...
   [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2013-10-31 18:15:04 $

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 18:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:35 UTC