Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference

<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 earlier

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 accessibility
... 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 location

<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 it.

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 fit.
... drawFocusIfNeeded?

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

<plh> 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 purposes

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 is.
... 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

[agreement]

Need to talk to Dominic and Alexander Surkov

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

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