W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2014

Minutes: Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference, 17 February 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:11:02 -0500
Message-ID: <53052BF6.1070609@w3.org>
To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
Hello,

The minutes for the Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference 17 February 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below.  Supporting information for this Sub Group can be found on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas

HTML: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/17-html-a11y-minutes.html

TEXT:
   [1]W3C

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

             Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

17 Feb 2014

Attendees

   Present
          Rich_S, Jatinder_Mann, Jay_Munro, Rik_Cabanier,
          Mark_Sadecki

   Regrets

   Chair
          Mark Sadecki

   Scribe
          Mark Sadecki

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Progress update on Mozilla Hit Regions work
         2. [4]Plan for Hit Regions
         3. [5]Taking Canvas back to LC
         4. [6]Bug 11342
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   Date: 17 February 2014

   <scribe> scribe: Mark Sadecki

   <scribe> scribeNick: MarkS

Progress update on Mozilla Hit Regions work

   RC: I only implemented a small subset of Hit Regions. Only the
   parts necessary to inform the AAPI

   RS: If its not a regular HTML control, it gets kicked out?

   RC: yes, I have not implemented that far into the spec yet.

Plan for Hit Regions

   RS: What Ian is trying to do is tying it to standard controls.
   Authors may not want to be confined to using just those
   controls.

   JMann: Has Chrome dropped support for drawFocusIfNeeded()

   RC: Dominic withdrew request to ship drawFocusIfNeeded()
   because of uncertainty in the spec.
   ... he was not comfortable with his own propsal anymore in
   light of the discussions at Mozilla.

   RS: Alexander Surkov, wanted to check with Ian about the
   drawFocusIfNeeded(). Ian changed his spec to indicate that you
   should use Hit Regions for this
   ... so that is what Mozilla did. Its a big job doing all the
   stuff Ian is asking for. David Bolter said they were a bit too
   strong in saying they were not going to go do it.
   ... they just wanted to try out Hit Regions

   JMann: So Ian said the regions should be described with Hit
   Regions, where does that leave drawFocusIfNeeded()?

   RC: the only change would be to step 3, which would be removed.
   They had issue with using it to inform the AAPI

   JMann: So they said drawFocusIfNeeded() should not update AAPI
   at all, just draw focus.

   RS: Whatever convention the browser uses for focus rings will
   get used.

   JMann: The most convincing part of this feature was the update
   of the AAPI
   ... are we saying that devs will need to implement both
   drawFocusIfNeeded() and Hit Regions to get this working?

   RS: That is correct, that is what they want.

   JMann: That seems like a lot of work.
   ... Draw the path, drawFocusIfNeeded() then add the Hit
   Regions. Don't need to add the Hit Regions everytime.

   RC: You don't need to specify a path.

   RS: My problem with what they have is that Ian has tried to
   restrict the controls you can use in Fallback. Any element can
   receive focus in HTML with tabindex. Anything can be in
   fallback content. You can attach a keyboard handler, etc. Could
   even route mouse events to the element.

   RC: I think that just needs to be changed.

Taking Canvas back to LC

   JMann: was there a WHATWG issue with our spec?

   RS: If we agree to get rid of step 3, we might need to have
   that moved directly into the WHATWG spec.
   ... Ian was making a statement that we were stealing his work
   and forking it. I thought the stuff that was in his spec would
   be moved over to our spec when complete.

   JMann: Today we are taking snapshots of WHATWG. His issue was
   that we had these discussions. How have we been coordinating
   with Ian?

   RC: We have filed bugs against the spec.
   ... drawFocusIfNeeded() was the first time we deviated from
   that process

   RS: so what do we do, issue a change request?

   RC: we would have to go to their list and discuss it, but
   Microsoft is not allowed to do that.

   JMann: can we open a bug on their spec?

   RC: yes.

   JMann: He will try to raise issues, but that could be a healthy
   thing anyway.

   RS: This is really big. I doubt we can pull this into a 1.0
   spec. Hit Testing

   RC: If canvas needs to be accessible, we are going to have to
   either fold Hit Regions in to our spec, or get the previous
   propsoal of drawFocusIfNeeded() added in to WHAT WG spec.

   JMann: What if we implement drawFocusIfNeeded() with step 3 cut
   out. Leave that in L1 spec. If we try to scope Hit Regions into
   L1, we could poorly implement it or delay Canvas L1

   RS: If we split them off, then a magnifier will not be able to
   work with Canvas.

   JMann: There are standards and there are implementations. Why
   can't we just promote the supported features in the browsers
   rather than the spec.

   RS: The API keeps changing, and apps are breaking.
   ... Path still needs to be brought in.
   ... fillRule, cursor, a lot of stuff here.

   RC: all of that is absent

   RS: I would think you would need Hit Region, and element to
   associate it with. The rest of the stuff could come in L2.
   ... if we can't do that in a reasonable amount of time, I don't
   see a problem with leaving step 3 in there.
   ... we could give one precedence over the other in L2. That
   would be very easy to do.

   RC: we currently don't have 2 implementations of
   drawFocusIfNeeded()

   RS: I think they would allow that to go in. I would have to ask
   David Bolter.

   RC: Rich is saying that we can keep step 3 in there and then
   remove it from L2 and use precedence to make it all work.

   JMann: so if I had Hit Regions and drawFocusIfNeeded() both
   specifying a path, what would happen

   RS: Hit Regions would take precedence.
   ... what you would say in L2, you would say if a Hit Regions
   was applied to an element, abort this step (setting the
   location)
   ... should be easy

   JMann: Just thinking this might be confusing for a develper
   when L2 comes out.
   ... I wouldn't want to change the API so much just to achieve
   this.

   RS: the problem is canvas going out without accessibility. no
   magnifiers will be able to zoom to those elements in fallback

   JMann: What if L1 doesn't support any. Then L2 comes out 6
   months later and everything is stable.

   RS: where do you point developers?

   JMann: I don't think developers read specs, there are other
   ways to inform the developers.

   RS: I'm not totally convinced we can get L2 out in 6 months

   JMann: I want to finish up and get iplementations, but I feel
   like we all want to get on L1 train, but making too many
   compromises to do it.

   RS: One of the things we are dealing with right now, and
   everyone else will too is 508 Refresh. This requirement will be
   a part of that. If we can't point to a spec that supports it,
   we have a problem.

   JMann: What is 508?

   RS: [Background in Section 508]

   JMann: What about a heartbeat spec?

   RS: What about this stuff with WHATWG

   JMann: As long as IE FF and Google are on board, I don't think
   its an issue

   RS: We tried to get Hit Regions in a year ago, and people just
   didn't have the cycles to deal with it.

   JMann: lets continue these discussions, we've been very
   productive so far.

   RS: This means you need to have an L1 spec that doesn't support
   a11y,

   JMann: What is the timeline for getting the minimal stuff in.

   RC: I don't know how much work will be involved to get all of
   Hit Regions in there.

   JMann: Is it realistic to get just the a11y stuff done in L1,
   and the rest in L2?

   RC: We would never be able to go to CR if nobody will have
   implemented Step3

   RS: Do we know that for sure? I would find that out.

   JMann: Another option, the 1.1 option, an incremental release
   that just adds the accessibility features..

   RS: I think that will be fine, but I don't know how long it
   would take to knock out a 1.1

   JMann: Sounds like a lot of the concerns people have seem to be
   around doing these together.
   ... do we need to put Path in an a11y solution?

   MS: I'd like to add another option, we ask the HTML WG for more
   time for Canvas to go back to LC. As it stands, Canvas is not
   accessible, we need more time.
   ... I suggest we file bugs on the WHAT WG spec on just the
   features we need to make Canvas minimally accessible; just the
   Hit Regions and Path parts needed to inform AAPI, then we get
   them to add the drawFocusIfNeeded() that doesn't inform the
   AAPI, then pull all of that into our spec and publish L1. Then
   we can work on all the rest of Hit Regions and Path in L2.

   JMunro: Rik you were in a discussion of Path and drawing
   shapes.

   RC: I think Path is still on the table.

   JMann: What do we think about that.

   RC: Will we get permission to support a version of canvas
   without accessibility?

   JMann: It sounds lke for L1 we want drawFocusIfNeeded() without
   the location, the Hit Regions without fillRule

   RC: all we are affected by is the regions, not the fillRule,
   the area,

   JMann: we can get rid of path, get rid of non-zero, ...

   RS: Under step 10, there is so much of this that I would get
   rid of, its not necessary for us right now.
   ... the fallback could be a div or span, you can't say that it
   has to be of this limited set of control

   JMann: I think we snhould upate L1 spec with the min parts we
   want, in L2, we include everything we want to include fully,
   and that will match the WHATWG spec. File bugs against WHAT WG,
   then get everybody to implement.
   ... Do we want to ask first?

   RC: I think Ian should be pretty happy with that approach.
   ... we're not going ot make ourselves incompatible.

   JMann: so L2 will just be an effort to converge with their
   spec.

   RS: I think this s parocess coordination effort with the
   editors.

   RC: I can propose that, but I don't think he is going to care.
   He won't reply.

   JMann: Are we suggesting any other changes to his spec?

   RC: Supporting other elements. We will need to file a bug for
   that.

   JMann: This is where we slow down. We should probably
   coordinagte with him on that.

   RC: I've been sending Ian a bunch of stuff about this and so
   has Dominic, but he says he is not interested in a11y. So we
   need to take it to their list.

   JMann: the whole WHAT WG thing is a process thing. Let's get
   what we want in our spec and then try to get them to change
   theirs.
   ... so we want to talk to Dominic.

   RS: I think we get agreement with Dominic and David Bolter and
   Alex Surkov. We are going to take a shorter version of this,
   file bugs against WHAT WG for Hit Regions and
   drawFocusIfNeeded(). Ian will probably just close them out.
   We'll just see if they agree with that approach.
   ... I think it should come from the editors.

   JMunro: before we send it to Ian, we should float it with the
   Chairs, we should talk to Paul.

Bug 11342

   MS: from the HTML A11y TF:
   [8]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#item01

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#item01

   RS: Text Metrics is not in L1

   JMunro: Only width is implemented

   RS: Should move this to L2

   JMunro: I can reopen this on L2.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version
    1.137 ([10]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-02-19 21:47:00 $

      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 22:11:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:37 UTC