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

Minutes: Canvas Accessibility Sub Group Teleconference, 24 February 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:17:22 -0500
Message-ID: <530BFD32.5050306@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 24 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/2014/02/24-html-a11y-minutes.html


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

             Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

24 Feb 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/24-html-a11y-irc


          Mark Sadecki, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina, Rik Cabanier,
          PLH, Jay Munro, Paul C, Jatinder Mann




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Document required steps and estimated timeline for
            each of the 4 options for moving forward
         2. [5]Possible Testing and/or Coordination meeting at
            HTML WG F2F April 7-9
     * [6]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 24 February 2014

   <scribe> Meeting: Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

Document required steps and estimated timeline for each of the 4
options for moving forward

   RC: I submitted my changes last week, but there was a memory
   leak, so the changes were reverted.
   ... I hope to get it back in tomorrow

   MS: It would be great if you could email around a private build
   with a demo file so we can evaluate the solution

   RC: there is no visual indicator, its only when you focus on
   the fallback elements

   PLH: You implemented the Hit Region API that was in Canvas

   RC: A small subset
   ... I want to know if ?? is necessary

   RS: If you go with Hit Regions, on mobile, if you put your
   finger over it, you would be able to hear it talk. If you don't
   have Hit Testing in there, it won't be able to do that

   RC: Is that absolutely necessary for this version

   RS: It makes it easier to do testing, but I don't think its
   critical. You want to give it a location at the very least.

   RC: The hit testing part won't be brought into Level 1

   RS: Do you think this is a good interim step for the WHAT WG?

   RC: I need to know if this solution is good enough for
   ... you give it a dictionary, specify the fallback elements,
   and give it an ID. There is a removeHitRegion that removes the
   region from the canvas

   RS: I think its good enough, if you have the ability to draw
   the ring with drawFocus and use Hit Regions to specify the

   <plh> MS: I'd like to see implementations and tests before I
   can confirm

   RS: Can we get this in chrome like that?

   RC: We're not inventing something new.

   RS: We need to have two implementations. Not sure when
   Microsoft can get to this. I think we need to make sure Dominic
   is on the same page, that we need these two functions.
   ... Send a note to dominic, get confirmation that he likes this
   approach. Then we can start working on our spec. We will be
   able to stay in sync that way.

   MS: Would be great if Rich could email Dominic, and CC me on

   RS: So we will be adding part of Hit RegionsRC:

   RC: Hit Regions will take an optional ID and an element

   PLH: Another thing to do is to edit the spec to bring it up to
   date with this thinking

   JM: If you can identify from a previous Version or the Nightly,
   just highlight what needs to go back in there, I can make it
   ... drawFocusIfNeeded?

   RC: dFIN stays in, but we get rid of step 3


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

   PLH: so we are adding back addHitRegion and removeHitRegion

   RC: yes, part of it won't be implemented

   PLH: Which part won't be implemented

   RC: only control and id are implemented

   JM: So we are going to put in addHiRegion(ID,control)
   ... what about hit regions can be used fro a variety of

   RC: We have to make sure we are compatible moving forward
   ... Would it be OK if we put the entire thing in there for now
   and then mark parts of it at Risk?

   PLH: I was thinking of this

   RC: i would prefer if you copy everything for now, with certain
   parts at risk

   JMann: seems like everyone wants to get this into L1
   ... wonder if its possible to get Hit Regions into L1 and in
   the case that implementers can't get it implemented in time we
   can fall back to a 1.1
   ... I think we should reach out to Chrome and Firefox to get a
   commitment and a date. Then we would need to follow up with
   Paul and the HTML WG to get a date for getting this work done.

   PC: You might get different answers from the TF and the WG.

   JMann: Would be great to find out if this is weeks or months.

   PC: you won't get a ruling from the chairs on what the schedule
   ... Should collect all the data you can, then go back to the TF
   with that info and they can choose the path they want to take
   and then get that back to the WG.

   JS: I agree with Paul. 6 months is not going to cut it. We need
   to get a better estimate from implementers.

   JMann: I don't think we should dump all of hit regions, just
   the minimal part that we know we can deliver

   JS: I agree with that as well.
   ... it makes it less clear what we want to do with 1.0

   JMann: Its not "at risk" some of these things just aren't going
   to happen, like Path
   ... is the goal to have them implement the entire Path object?

   RC: I think its already in Chrome

   JS: So, we want time to think Path and other "at-risk" things
   through. Those are still an open discussion.
   ... If FF and Chrome implement those, then great

   PC: So I hear that you want to ask Mozilla and Chrome what they
   plan on implementing, and then map those against the a11y
   requirements and if that passes the bar, that is what you want
   to put into the proposed LC document.
   ... instead of asking Jay or Jatinder, maybe we should be
   committing all of our resources to find out what they are going
   to implement. If they disagree on some parts, this team might
   need to compromise on those.
   ... then only bring the minimal subset of that back into L1


   Need to talk to Dominic and Alexander Surkov

   JMann: might be good to have a convo off the list to get their

Possible Testing and/or Coordination meeting at HTML WG F2F April 7-9

   JS: Hopefully by then we will have more progress. might be a
   good opportunity to get some testing done?

   JMann: I will most likely be there

   JM: I'm just waiting to see if my travel gets approved

   RS: I will be out of of the country

   RC: I will ask

   JS: we could possibly grab dominic as well

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [8]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([9]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-02-25 02:13:17 $

      [8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 02:17:29 UTC

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