- From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:16:46 -0400
- To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hello,
The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 31 October 2013 are available in HTML and plain text below:
HTML:
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html
TEXT:
[1]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
Mark_Sadecki, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, paulc,
Suzanne_Taylor, Adrian_Roselli, Jatinder Mann,
Rich_Schwerdtfeger, John_Foliot, Jay Munroe
Regrets
Chair
Chaals
Scribe
MarkS
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]REMINDER: Everyone is asked to rejoin the HTML-WG
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2
013Oct/0001.html
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
Teleconference
<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
[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.
calendaring
<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
[10]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
<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.
canvas
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
spec
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
this.
<paulc> What does Rich means " it was agreed upon"?
PC: when you said it was agreed upon, what were you referring
to?
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
<JatinderMann>
[11]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/
[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/
[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
support
... 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
risk
... as soon as possible
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to frame the questions as outlined by
Paul for a TF CfC [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
2]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Frame the questions as outlined
by paul for a tf cfc [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due
2013-11-07].
JM: I'd love to see a test page to see focus ring without path
object.
... to see if its useful on its own
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/accessible_canvas_clock.html
[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
Shape
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.
<Suzanne_T>
[15]http://wps.pearsoned.com/wps/media/objects/13909/14243253/P
atterns_System_Focus_ring.htm
[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
not.
... 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
[17]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
2]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to post meeting dates for next month...
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/31-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
[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