15:55:39 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:55:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-html-a11y-irc
15:55:41 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:55:41 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:55:43 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:55:43 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago
15:55:44 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:55:44 Date: 05 December 2013
15:55:45 cabanier has joined #html-a11y
15:56:36 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
15:56:43 +[Microsoft]
15:56:50 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
15:56:50 +paulc; got it
15:57:56 rubys has joined #html-a11y
15:58:50 +??P2
15:59:34 +Mark_Sadecki
16:00:05 +Sam
16:00:47 zakim, ??P2 is Janina
16:00:48 +Janina; got it
16:01:43 +[IPcaller]
16:02:04 zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:02:04 +cabanier; got it
16:02:04 chaals has joined #html-a11y
16:02:18 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:02:22 trackbot, start meeting
16:02:24 RRSAgent, make logs world
16:02:26 Zakim, this will be 2119
16:02:26 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 62 minutes ago
16:02:27 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
16:02:27 Date: 05 December 2013
16:02:29 plh has joined #html-a11y
16:02:31 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
16:03:25 zakim, [ip is me
16:03:25 sorry, chaals, I do not recognize a party named '[ip'
16:03:35 zakim, who is here?
16:03:36 aardrian has joined #html-a11y
16:03:36 I notice WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has restarted
16:03:36 On the phone I see paulc, Janina, Mark_Sadecki, Sam, cabanier, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, [IPcaller], Adrian_Roselli
16:03:36 On IRC I see richardschwerdtfeger, plh, wuwei, chaals, rubys, cabanier, Zakim, RRSAgent, paulc, SteveF, davidb, janina_, janina, hober, MarkS, st, trackbot
16:03:46 zakim, [IP is me
16:03:46 +chaals; got it
16:03:58 +EricP
16:04:20 zakim, EricP is wuwei
16:04:20 +wuwei; got it
16:04:28 agenda+ Mutation events and their replacements
16:04:28 agenda+ Resolution of longdesc LC comments, next steps
16:04:28 agenda+ Resolution of MSE comments
16:04:28 agenda+ Canvas 2D context. Next steps…
16:04:28 agenda+ other business
16:04:51 scribe: MarkS
16:05:18 zakim, take up agendum 1
16:05:18 agendum 1. "Mutation events and their replacements" taken up [from chaals]
16:05:38 Chair: Chaals
16:05:53 CN: because HTML WG is now publishing DOM4, DOM falls into the work of the a11y TF.
16:06:08 q+
16:06:12 ...the TF cares about the replacement of mutation events, so we will be following this
16:06:18 ack ric
16:07:01 RS: I'm working on SVG2 spec, and we just moved from referencing DOM2 to DOM3. Wondering what we should be focusing on
16:07:34 CN: I would recommend DOM4. It's not finished, but previous ones are "legacy" documents, but you should definitely check.
16:07:37 +John_Foliot
16:07:48 +Plh
16:08:02 RS: they want to go to LC by the end of the year, would we have a hard time doing this if we start referencing DOM4?
16:08:15 CN: I would check with Alex and Robin, the editors of the DOM4 spec
16:08:42 RS: would like to reference DOM4 for SVG to better bring it inline with HTML
16:09:22 ...there is a UI Events spec. Doesn't look like browsers have implemented new keyboard interface that is in this spec. Is it going to be different in DOM4?
16:09:45 +Judy
16:09:52 PLH: DOM4 does not reference UI Events
16:10:32 RS: In UI Events, they introduce an extension to the DOM3 keyboard interface. Trying to figure out where we go wit that, keyboard is important for a11y. I will bring it up today in our call
16:10:34 s/reference/define/
16:10:47 zakim, take up next agendum
16:10:47 agendum 2. "Resolution of longdesc LC comments, next steps" taken up [from chaals]
16:10:55 Topic: Longdesc
16:12:11 CN: Chairs believe there is consensus on proposed responses. Will be sending those soon. Implement editorial changes next, then we will be ready to either request publication as a standalone spec or folded back into HTML
16:13:01 ...since this will presumably happen well before HTML5 is published, both options are viable. Makes sense to publish on its own and let HTML decide if they would like to include it.
16:13:25 zakim, close this agendum
16:13:25 agendum 2 closed
16:13:26 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:13:26 3. Resolution of MSE comments [from chaals]
16:13:39 Judy has joined #html-a11y
16:13:41 zakim, next item
16:13:41 agendum 3. "Resolution of MSE comments" taken up [from chaals]
16:13:51 Topic: Resolution of MSE comments
16:14:33 JS: A couple of bugs were filed based on our response to LC comments.
16:14:39 All MSE LC bugs: http://tinyurl.com/lowrcmq
16:14:49 CN: does this need to be handled this week?
16:15:18 JS: no, I think we are interested in clarifying the reason for a specific issue.
16:15:25 A11Y bugs: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661
16:15:40 CN: this has to do with multiple video streams for sign-language captioning
16:15:44 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23663
16:16:39 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c2
16:17:30 q+
16:17:30 JS: we would want the acknowledgment that this is required for accessibility. That the spec is sufficient to support a11y at that level. We originally made this intention clear back in 2010
16:17:54 ack me
16:18:42 CN: says the MSE spec is following the HTML spec. We want an acknowledgement of the use case in both specs, nothing normative.
16:19:40 ...suggest Janina should clarify what we are looking for, use cases, non-normative, or normative text, and come back to us with a proposal on this for next week.
16:20:21 ACTION: Janina to bring back a proposal for how the TF should deal with HTML bug 23661 (normative change, informative editorial change, …)
16:20:21 Created ACTION-219 - Bring back a proposal for how the tf should deal with html bug 23661 (normative change, informative editorial change, …) [on Janina Sajka - due 2013-12-12].
16:20:30 zakim, close this item
16:20:30 agendum 3 closed
16:20:31 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:20:31 4. Canvas 2D context. Next steps… [from chaals]
16:20:33 zakim, next item
16:20:33 agendum 4. "Canvas 2D context. Next steps…" taken up [from chaals]
16:22:30 CN: asked if we wanted to move at risk items to L2. a11y TF wanted to proceed with focus ring items at risk. There was a questions RE: even if it is implemented, does it solve the problem.
16:22:36 q?
16:22:39 q+
16:22:40 q+
16:22:42 ack ric
16:22:44 q+
16:22:45 ack plh
16:22:50 ack pl
16:22:56 action-215?
16:22:56 action-215 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Work with jatinder to open issues on canvas api -- due 2013-11-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:22:56 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/215
16:23:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Dec/0011.html
16:23:24 http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/457/2dcontext/drawing-paths-to-the-canvas/
16:23:25 PLH: I had an action item to work with Jatinder and file bugs based on system and custom focus rings
16:23:31 ...i also wrote some tests.
16:23:46 CN: result of tests?
16:24:04 http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/457/2dcontext/drawing-paths-to-the-canvas/drawSystemFocusRing_005.html
16:24:05 PLH: with proper flags set in Chrome Canary and FF Nightly, they mostly worked
16:24:27 ...Big question, do you draw a focus ring all the time, even if the element is not in focus?
16:24:41 RS: It has to be focused in order for it to draw the ring
16:24:53 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:24:54 PLH: but what about a paragraph, which is not focusable.
16:25:26 ...is the spec clear enough or not? the spec actually doesn't make it clear that this is a bug.
16:25:44 " or if the element would have a focus ring drawn around it,"
16:26:02 s/which is not focusable//
16:26:14 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:26:22 ack paulc
16:27:45 PC: decision by the TF on the CfC in the TF suggested that both system and custom focus rings should maintain at risk status. Rich is suggesting that customFocusRing should move to L2, which is not inline with results of TF CfC
16:28:09 q+ to say I am happy to call a new CfC, given there is evidence the consensus has changed at least on drawCustomFocusRing
16:28:19 +1
16:28:42 +1 to paul's statement
16:28:42 +1
16:28:42 ack ri
16:28:47 ...what happens if one or more of these bugs causes a substantial change, requiring this spec to go back into LC 2 more times. Should try to flatten as many of these bugs as possible before we go back into LC for the first time
16:28:55 q+
16:29:01 zakim, mute me
16:29:01 Mark_Sadecki should now be muted
16:29:07 ack me
16:29:07 chaals, you wanted to say I am happy to call a new CfC, given there is evidence the consensus has changed at least on drawCustomFocusRing
16:29:13 RS: we can work on getting them closed before we go back.
16:29:39 CN: given that the consensus has changed, I will happily call a new CfC to see if we want to move custom to L2.
16:29:46 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:29:53 hi
16:30:06 ack jan
16:30:07 ...lets try to squash bugs.
16:30:36 s/lets/for drawSystemFocusRing it seems the best approach is/
16:31:02 JS: we discussed this in PF and I think we are close to having something we all agree on. Part of the reason why there has been a change in customFocusRing is that the approach relies on media query functionality that is not available yet.
16:31:20 ...we didn't think it would take 60-90 days to close existing bugs.
16:31:30 s/take/take more than
16:31:50 RS: I've been talking with Rik on wording to address these bugs already.
16:32:07 CS: Rich, have you brought back the sub-team?
16:32:10 q+
16:32:24 RS: haven't done so, but if you think that would help
16:32:31 CS: please include Jatinder
16:32:38 ack pa
16:32:53 JatinderMann_ has joined #html-a11y
16:33:11 +[Microsoft]
16:33:18 q+
16:33:27 ack ca
16:33:37 PC: Normally what we would do is defer to the editors of the spec. Already good comments on bugs, there are conversations happening already. Should make sure the canvas editors are aware they are empowered to close/work on these bugs where possible.
16:34:14 q+
16:34:14 q+ to ask Rich to ensure that we keep the TF and WG informed about where we are at.
16:34:24 RC: we already tried to go through CR six months ago. We were told focus rings were almost ready. We ran into these issues. 4 months later, more issues. Worried that 6 months from now we will find even more.
16:35:03 ack ju
16:35:07 ...i would like to move forward sooner. leave them at risk, which they may fail to survive. work on them in L2
16:36:00 q+
16:36:06 JB: I think we are making progress here. There have been a lot of conversations happening. We have some implementations, those are being reviewed and tested. We have more specifics now than we had previously, which indicates improvement.
16:36:16 q- later
16:36:30 ...lets follow through with identifying issues, addressing them and testing them.
16:36:35 ack paul
16:37:04 q+
16:37:15 q- later
16:37:33 PC: if those problems are not reflected in existing CR bugs, then the right way to have a dialog and get consensus is to file bugs and start working on them. Having the bugs causes the dialogs to happen.
16:37:54 ...its very possible that a CfC to go back to LC will fail if we don't close some of these bugs.
16:38:13 ...i would like to take a couple weeks to see where we stand on the bugs.
16:38:24 ackpl
16:38:27 ack pl
16:38:28 ...and document any additional bugs.
16:38:32 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23980
16:38:36 s/ackpl//
16:38:43 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:38:44 q+
16:38:51 q- later
16:38:57 q+
16:39:01 ack ju
16:39:02 PLH: if there are bugs missing from my list, please file them. There is one bug addressing the naming issue. I encourage people to comment if they have a position on any of these.
16:39:04 q- later
16:39:11 ack jat
16:39:30 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:39:40 JM: RE: Bug on name. There was a historical reason. Would help if that history was clarified in the bug comments.
16:39:55 ack me
16:39:55 chaals, you wanted to ask Rich to ensure that we keep the TF and WG informed about where we are at.
16:40:06 ...would love to see notes justifying the method naming
16:40:26 CN: I agree, file the bugs, discuss the bugs, keep TF and WG informed on your progress.
16:40:38 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:41:01 PLH: I don't have access to the history of the naming issue. Rich has started to include some information.
16:41:30 RS: Perhaps just getting rid of the word "ring" from the method names would work.
16:41:53 JB: lets track it with normal group process
16:42:03 RS: thanks to PLH for filing the bugs.
16:42:17 PLH: would love to have someone look at and approve the bugs.
16:42:18 q+
16:42:19 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:42:21 s/bugs/tests
16:42:30 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
16:42:34 http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/457/2dcontext/drawing-paths-to-the-canvas/
16:42:38 ack ca
16:43:01 RC: most important thing about focus ring is that they updated the AAPI. I don't know how we can test that.
16:43:03 q+
16:43:29 ack ju
16:43:32 q+
16:43:33 ...under the hood it tells the OS where the focused region is
16:44:02 JB: WAI is currently trying to document how to test a11y related issues.
16:44:14 SteveF has joined #html-a11y
16:44:38 CS: they are OS APIS so there are ways to automate this type of testing.
16:44:43 ack me
16:45:20 CN: longdesc has requirements to test AAPIs. We looked at AAPIs directly/manually.
16:45:44 ...sounds like we agree to what needs to be done.
16:45:56 q+
16:46:36 q+
16:46:42 PC: I heard a suggestion from CS that a group of people get together to work on this. Can we get Rich and Rik to coordinate a meeting to make progress with all the players?
16:46:43 ack pa
16:46:53 q-
16:46:54 ack jat
16:47:12 q+
16:47:22 JS: canvas sub-team?
16:47:41 I hope so too ;)
16:47:50 zakim, unmute me
16:47:50 Mark_Sadecki should no longer be muted
16:48:09 q+
16:48:16 q- later
16:48:23 ack mar
16:48:27 q-
16:48:55 ACTION: Mark to follow up on getting the canvas sub-team working
16:48:55 'Mark' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., msadecki, mwatson2).
16:49:11 ACTION: Marks to follow up on getting the canvas sub-team working
16:49:12 Created ACTION-220 - Follow up on getting the canvas sub-team working [on Mark Sadecki - due 2013-12-12].
16:49:42 q+
16:49:45 JS: there were some questions regarding history of naming methods, etc. There was a separate list for canvas discussions that could be referenced. Might be good to go back to that.
16:50:05 CS: please include me as well
16:50:35 CN: agree that we document everything.
16:51:09 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:51:10 -John_Foliot
16:51:10 -cabanier
16:51:11 -chaals
16:51:11 -Plh
16:51:13 -[Microsoft]
16:51:13 -Judy
16:51:14 -Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:51:14 -Adrian_Roselli
16:51:15 -wuwei
16:51:15