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

Minutes: Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference, 24 March 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:45:13 -0400
Message-ID: <533206F9.6010504@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 24 March 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/2014/03/24-html-a11y-minutes.html

TEXT:

    [1]W3C

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

             Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

24 Mar 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/24-html-a11y-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Jay Munro, Jatinder Mann, Mark Sadecki, Rich
          Schwerdtfeger, Janina Sajka

   Regrets

   Chair
          MarkS

   Scribe
          MarkS

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Review progress from previous week (pixels to
            paths, coordinates of hit region, mouse events)
         2. [5]Discuss feedback from Jacob Rossi
         3. [6]Establish definitive timeline for Level 1
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <MarkS> [18:01:33] ->
   [8]http://www.w3.org/2014/03/17-html-a11y-minutes.html Minutes
   from last meeting

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/17-html-a11y-minutes.html

Review progress from previous week (pixels to paths, coordinates of
hit region, mouse events)

   [9]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#
   hit-regions

      [9] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#hit-regions

   JM: I changed pixels to paths

   MS: Jay you had some questions in an off-list email, did those
   get resolved?

   JM: i wasn't sure if we should take the section on clearing
   regions, or reword it.

   <JatinderMann>
   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Ma
   r/0071.html

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0071.html

Discuss feedback from Jacob Rossi

   <JatinderMann>
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Ma
   r/0061.html

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0061.html

   JMann: accessing regions by ID is clumsy, why not just
   reference by the associated element
   ... we can talk about his on list, get Rik's opinion. we won't
   need the dictionary if we just require the control and not the
   ID
   ... for level 1 spec purposed, the dictionary just has control
   and ID.

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

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

   MS: will that cause any problems when L2 comes around?

   JMann: yes it will. OK.
   ... perhaps we should continue using the dictionary.
   ... should also still question the requirement for ID
   ... it currently sounds like even control is optional

   <JatinderMann> “If the control member is null or no such region
   currently exists, let previous region for the control be null.”

   MS: i think that needs to be there for L2 when developers can
   create "virtual" fallback content and define aria roles states
   and properties directly in canvas code.

   JMann: i only showed Jacob L1 spec
   ... in the context of L1, having control be optional doesn't a
   make sense
   ... if we build on this in L2, there is a potential
   compatibility issue.
   ... it sees like Jacob is finding things that don't make sense
   when you don't know that its there for L2
   ... want to hear Rik's opinion on why ID and control are
   optional
   ... the argument type (dictionary) isn't defined any where.
   ... i think its a simple oversight
   ... would want to add the dictionary in, with just control, but
   that is going to be awkward for developers.
   ... i think we should clarify the reason why we have only one
   item (control) in the dictionary.
   ... he also said there was no way to access the hit region.
   only add it, and remove it.

   RS: that is bad.

   JMann: i should be able to iterate through hit regions
   ... we could reference it by control.

   RS: we don't have Path yet.

   JMann: we could expose a list of hit regions.

   RS: need a new method that allows us to access the list and add
   or remove items from it

   JMann: what are the use cases. I would want to change the path
   of the hit region.

   RS: if its by ID you could replace it. Just require that they
   have an ID in order...

   JMann: jacob's feedback was that we should reference by
   control's id, not the id of the region.
   ... use the DOM id for the hit region.
   ... for L1 spec, we don't have path, fill rule, etc only a
   dictionary of one item. Do we need a dictionary, for only one
   item. but that is because of L2, which will require a
   dictionary.

   RS: Explain it in a note that this will be expanded in L2.

   JMann: it was interesting feedback from someone who only looked
   at the L1 spec.
   ... the other thing is that the spec says that you don't have
   to specify a control, why would control be optional?

   [13]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage
   /the-canvas-element.html#canvas-mouseevent-rerouting-steps

     [13]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#canvas-mouseevent-rerouting-steps

   MS: its for hixie's concept of unbacked regions

   JMann: if we don't do label and role in L1, we have to make
   sure that control is required.

   RS: I agree
   ... not sure unbacked region will go anywhere.

   JMann: the spec should handle pointer events. inherit mouse
   events. Wherever we talk about a mouse event being fired, we
   should also talk about pointer events being fired. The next
   question is about touch events.

   RS: what do we say about touch events in the HTML5 spec

   JMann: there is no active work being done on touch events. I
   think they are deprecated for pointer events

   RS: i think so

   JMann: i think safari and chrome support touch events.
   ... it sounds like we're taking all of jacob's feedback, remove
   ID, make control required, we keep the dictionary, figure out a
   way to expose and iterate through hit regions and to add
   pointer events to the spec.

   RS: Doug is saying that apple doesn't want it

   JMann: lets start with pointer events. if we get feedback on
   touch events, we can deal with it then.
   ... it would get complicated if we supported touch events.
   ... I'll work with Jay to get these changes made.
   ... post to mailing list as well

   JM: sounds like we will be adding new methods for exposing hit
   regions list.

   JMann: will talk to jacob about how he envisioned that working.
   ... will follow up with him on that.

   MS: will also have to file bugs on WHAT WG for these new
   methods.

   JMann: and a bug on pointer events too

   MS: I think we should propose spec text with rationale

   JMann: I'm good with that.

Establish definitive timeline for Level 1

   JMann: we have good feedback. would love to hear dominic's take
   on these changes. make sure implementors are OK with changes.

   JM: we will drop ID, we will change mouse to refer to mouse and
   pointer. and there is the method to access the hit region list.

   JMann: have to go throughout he processing model, capture all
   processes for control.
   ... i think we can do this in a week. next week review changes.
   ... I'd rather get feedback early and change it. It's painful
   but good. I think it is looking good, hard to say until we get
   feedback from other implementers.
   ... is it good enough to add a getter method and then something
   to add and remove
   ... or an update method that handles it
   ... right now we can only link it to an element. what are the
   use cases. would we link it to a different element? add a path?
   ... I'll come up with something to propose.

   MS: OK, so we will get feedback from dominic on list RE:
   changes proposed today and share L1 spec with changes already
   agreed upon for review. Once we have feedback from both dominic
   and ric it will be easier to establish a timeline.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.137 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-03-25 21:10:53 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 22:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:38 UTC