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

Minutes: Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference, 03 February 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:20:55 -0500
Message-ID: <52F10557.8070703@w3.org>
To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org

The minutes for the Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference 03 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/2014/02/03-html-a11y-minutes.html


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

             Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

03 Feb 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/03-html-a11y-irc


          Mark Sadecki, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Jay Munro, David
          Bolter, Jatinder Mann, Mike Smith

          Mark Sadecki

          Mark Sadecki


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Concerns raised by Mozilla
         2. [5]When Canvas can go back to LC
         3. [6]Next Meeting
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 03 February 2014

   <scribe> Meeting: Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

Concerns raised by Mozilla

   DB: It appears as though there was a reaction to the discussion
   at Mozilla. I was surprised that Dominic withdrew his support.
   ... need to ask him. Want to give Alex and Rik some space to
   explore hit regions


      [8] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=958241

   DB: worried that the AAPI doesn't have enough info about
   siblings and children, etc.

   RS: I understand that info gets stored in the layout engine,
   and in the AAPI. If you do average scrolling, the info get
   updated. The issue we had was if the viewport needed to be
   scrolled into view, which we handled in our spec changes
   ... When the discussion was happening, Zynga was not pleased
   with hit testing approach. They wanted something "fuzzier"
   ... they wanted to modify the actually hit or trigger area
   ... when hit testing was put into the spec, Microsoft didn't
   have a chance to review it. It was later taken out. So we
   focused on the drawSystemFocusRing, now drawFocusIfNeeded
   approach to handle a11y.
   ... in order for hit regions to work, we have to work on Path
   as well. Most of this is Canvas L2 stuff.

   DB: Who is responsible for storing the current path


   RS: its the object, the canvas object.
   ... I think the drawFocusIfNeeded and Hit Regions need to

   DB: It could cause a problem, I don't know.

   RS: If we do implement hit regions, we could say that it
   overrides any drawFocusIfNeeded processing.

   DB: right one would need priority
   ... we wanted to explore hit testing. if it doesn't work out,
   we wanted to consider focus outline as a backup
   ... if hit testing goes really well, we're not sure what we
   would do with focus outline approach

   JMann: So hit testing might solve the problem we solve with

   RS: It would solve the location info, but not the outline

   JMann: so we have two potential solutions, but would only need
   to support one?

   RS: IF we had two, could one affect the setting of the other?

   DB: I'm looking out for the cognitive load on the developer

   JMann: If we support drawFocus, and then hit testing comes
   around, how does that affect the developer

   RS: Hit testing was always in the plan. The question is how
   long people will have to wait.

   JMann: imagine we support drawFocus, hit testing in L2 will
   have to play nicely with drawFocus

   RS: I don't think it would be a problem. We'd be applying hit
   regions in a similar manner to how its done in the OS. The
   thing is, if we add hit testing, if someone supplies a hit
   region, it takes precedence over any other location information

   JMann: whatever we build in L2, it has to play well with L1. I
   just worry about compatibility. Espeicially if our only
   motivation is to get something out the door.

   RS: We will still need to handle drawing the focus, including
   high contrast.

   DB: as far as I'm concerned, neither option is off the table.
   Trevor didn't accept the patch, but that is not final. We would
   like to take a week on this to do some exploration.
   ... I have reached out to Dominic. Don't want to bother him too

   RS: Better if it came from Moz.

   MS: encourage Moz to post to public-canvas-api

   JMunro: looking at hit regions, just wanted to say Path is
   critical to that. If we are thinking about going down that
   road, there is a lot of work to do on both

   JMann: happy with drawFocus in L1 and hit regions in L2 as long
   as there is no backwards compatibility issues.

   RS: I don't think they are going to draw the actual focus in
   hit regions

When Canvas can go back to LC

   MS: I will update Paul this week in the TF call. Mozilla would
   like at least one week to explore the Hit Testing solution.
   They do not formally oppose drawFocusIfNeeded at this point.
   David Bolter will reach out to Dominic to make sure that is

Next Meeting

   See you all next week.

   <jaymunro> thanks mark

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([10]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-02-04 15:19:12 $

      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 15:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:37 UTC