15:58:16 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:58:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-irc
15:58:18 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:58:18 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:58:20 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:58:20 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
15:58:21 agenda?
15:58:21 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:58:21 Date: 27 February 2014
15:58:48
15:58:48 Chair: Chaals
15:58:48 agenda+ longdesc update
15:58:48 agenda+ canvas update
15:58:48 agenda+ HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April
15:58:48 agenda+ Bug Triage
15:58:48 agenda+ Any other business?
15:59:39 David_ has joined #html-a11y
16:00:01 aardrian has joined #html-a11y
16:00:11 zakim, this is 2119
16:00:11 ok, chaals; that matches WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM
16:00:21 +David_MacDonald
16:00:21 zakim, who is here?
16:00:22 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Adrian_Roselli, [IPcaller], David_MacDonald
16:00:22 On IRC I see aardrian, David_, Zakim, RRSAgent, chaals, paulc, richardschwerdtfeger, hober, janina, cabanier, MarkS, trackbot
16:00:30 +??P7
16:00:30 zakim, [ip is me
16:00:31 +chaals; got it
16:00:42 zakim, ??p7 is janina
16:00:42 +janina; got it
16:01:02 +[IPcaller]
16:01:08 zakim, [micro is PaulC
16:01:09 +PaulC; got it
16:01:11 +Mark_Sadecki
16:01:22 agenda+ DOM report from PF
16:01:30 zakim, [Microsoft] is paulc
16:01:30 sorry, paulc, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]'
16:01:38 zakim, [ip is Leonie
16:01:38 +Leonie; got it
16:01:49 zakim, who is here?
16:01:49 On the phone I see PaulC, Adrian_Roselli, chaals, David_MacDonald, janina, Leonie, Mark_Sadecki
16:01:50 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:01:51 scribe: MarkS
16:01:52 On IRC I see aardrian, David_, Zakim, RRSAgent, chaals, paulc, richardschwerdtfeger, hober, janina, cabanier, MarkS, trackbot
16:01:52 sorry, paulc, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]'
16:02:06 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:07 On the phone I see PaulC, Adrian_Roselli, chaals, David_MacDonald, janina, Leonie, Mark_Sadecki
16:02:26 LJWatson has joined #html-a11y
16:02:34 Judy has joined #html-a11y
16:02:41 +Judy
16:02:51 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:02:59 zakim, who's here?
16:02:59 On the phone I see PaulC, Adrian_Roselli, chaals, David_MacDonald, janina, Leonie, Mark_Sadecki, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly
16:03:01 On IRC I see Judy, LJWatson, aardrian, David_, Zakim, RRSAgent, chaals, paulc, richardschwerdtfeger, hober, janina, cabanier, MarkS, trackbot
16:03:28 zakim, take up item 1
16:03:28 agendum 1. "longdesc update" taken up [from chaals]
16:03:37 JatinderMann has joined #html-a11y
16:03:53 +[Microsoft]
16:04:20 CM: chaals and mark are working on exit criteria, will be sharing with the group for consensus soon.
16:04:48 zakim, [Micro is Jatinder
16:04:48 +Jatinder; got it
16:05:03 MS: PaulC you asked for a timing update…
16:05:14 PC: Yes, especially wrt the face to face meeting.
16:05:30 … trying to figure our load on Director's calls
16:06:14 q+
16:06:16 MS: Might take 2-3 weeks to get WG stuff tied up (most particularly getting Exit Criteria approved).
16:06:35 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:06:41 … so best case we do it before f2f. Or we could let if go after f2f.
16:08:43 CMN: we will keep Paul informed to avoid any timeline conflicts
16:08:45 +Suzanne_Taylor
16:09:05 st_bbl has joined #html-a11y
16:09:24 agenda+ staffing HTML to API mapping guide
16:09:27 plh has joined #html-a11y
16:09:33 +Plh
16:09:39 scribe: chaals
16:09:45 Topic: Canvas update
16:10:00 MS: Had a meeting on Monday. Discussed possible timelines, options.
16:10:12 q+
16:10:34 … agreement that we should get the accessibility problem done before publishing level 1, so should get Hit regions done.
16:11:10 … 2 possible ways. One is to bring back what we minimally need for an accessible canvas, other is to bring back all of hitregions, put things at risk and see how much we get done.
16:11:29 … Group is starting to consider bringing all of hit regions as the better approach.
16:12:04 …Mozilla has now landed basic hitregions that inform accessibility API - which is exactly what we wanted.
16:12:14 … Others have asked for hit testing, which would also benefit accessibility.
16:12:26 RS: Think @@ has hit testing working.
16:13:00 s/@@/patched firefox nightly/
16:13:26 ??: Seems we were trying to get input from google/mozilla on what we should do here.
16:14:00 … Good news, Ric implemented it in firefox - grreat effort. Bad news is that there is a lot of feedback from google that needs to be addressed. E.g. hitregions doesn't do hit testing.
16:14:13 … We want to implement the full feature not just a slice.
16:14:26 q+
16:14:27 s/??/JMann
16:14:44 … When we asked Domenic for a timeline he said months not weeks, and it isn't clear if this is minimal or full implementation.
16:14:58 … So, what is the cost of doing it testing - can it be done in L1, without path?
16:15:15 ack jat
16:15:30 scribe: MarkS
16:15:30 ack pa
16:15:58 PC: I attended monday's meeting. There was talk of bringing all of Hit Regions back in and marking it at risk.
16:16:15 ...I suggested the group try to find out what implementers are implementing.
16:16:38 +1 to PC
16:16:40 ...reports confirm that we need to be patient and figure out what needs to be put back in to L1
16:16:41 ack ri
16:16:58 RS: I believe Mozilla has hit testing in their Nightly
16:17:00 q+
16:17:06 ack me
16:17:09 ...we do need to resolve what we need in the spec
16:17:40 CN: I agree with Paul, we need to decide what goes back into the spec. Sounds like progress is being made. Hoepfully we'll have a resolution soon.
16:17:48 q+
16:17:51 ack ja
16:18:09 JMann: I think its important to get Google on board and figure out what they want to ship
16:18:15 q+
16:18:27 q+
16:18:29 q+
16:18:32 ack ma
16:18:48 scribe: chaals
16:19:38 MS: Based on Google's email I heard something different. They aren't that concerned by the spec. Domenic seemed to suggest a couple of weeks' work, but that theyhave other higher priorities.
16:19:43 q+
16:19:47 … sounded like they would implement everything.
16:19:53 scribe: MarkS
16:19:54 scribe: MarkS
16:20:15 ack ri
16:20:18 ack me
16:20:26 RS: there was discussion about where these conversations take place. Right now, of critical importance is what elements can be used as fallback content
16:21:13 ack ja
16:21:14 q+
16:21:16 CM: Our task is to work on HTML stuff in the W3C. It sounds like there is work to do, some hurdles, but the group is making progress.
16:21:46 s/making progress/making progress, and don't have a particular issue they need the full TF to help resolve at this stage/
16:21:47 ach richardschwerdtfeger
16:21:48 q+
16:21:53 ack richardschwerdtfeger
16:22:12 JMann: Is dominic referring to everything in the spec? i worry if they want to do all of it. sounds like feature creep. especially regarding the path object.
16:22:24 q+
16:22:25 acj ju
16:22:30 ack ja
16:22:30 ...i think if we put everything in, we will run into timing issues.
16:22:34 q+ janina
16:23:28 JB: Be great to get this back on a good course.
16:23:36 ack jan
16:23:46 ack ju
16:23:53 s/acj ju//
16:24:10 s/ach richardschwerdtfeger//
16:24:38 JS: I think all of us want to do it all. We have to worry about publishing a spec. The specificity we need from Dominic is what order we would like these done in.
16:25:05 zakim, take up next item
16:25:05 agendum 2. "canvas update" taken up [from chaals]
16:25:10 zakim, close item 2
16:25:10 agendum 2, canvas update, closed
16:25:11 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:25:11 3. HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April [from chaals]
16:25:14 zakim, take up next item
16:25:14 agendum 3. "HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April" taken up [from chaals]
16:25:51 CM: HTML WG is meeting at eBay in San Jose April 8-9. Need to register if you want to attend
16:26:27 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda face to face meeting wiki page
16:26:28 PC: The wiki page is very extensive. A lot of agenda ideas there. We should consider using this F2F to work through Canvas.
16:26:44 ...all the TF work is up for discussion at the F2F
16:27:03 ...Please feel free to edit the wiki page for the F2F
16:27:49 See https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda#Potential_Topics for draft agenda topics
16:28:31 -chaals
16:28:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html
16:28:49 +[IPcaller]
16:28:59 zakim, [ip is me
16:28:59 +chaals; got it
16:30:07 -chaals
16:30:22 agenda?
16:30:42 -Suzanne_Taylor
16:31:07 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0064.html Interest in attending F2F
16:31:07 +??P4
16:31:12 zakim, close item 3
16:31:12 agendum 3, HTML WG meeting, 8/9 April, closed
16:31:13 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:31:13 4. Bug Triage [from chaals]
16:31:16 zakim, take up next tiem
16:31:16 I don't understand 'take up next tiem', MarkS
16:31:22 zakim, take up next item
16:31:22 agendum 4. "Bug Triage" taken up [from chaals]
16:31:51 zakim, ??p4 is me
16:31:51 +chaals; got it
16:31:54 LW: made very good progress over the past few weeks.
16:32:12 ...there are a lot of media related bugs. be great if the media sub team could get back in action
16:32:17 ...Mark sent around an email
16:32:36 scribe: chaals
16:32:53 MS: Paul we've been closing bugs. Some are not CR-critical but would like to consider in 5.1
16:33:16 … Previously you mentioned closing old bugs and opening new ones for 5.1 as there was an issue of bringing all the history.
16:33:39 … we have been finding the history to often be relevant, so we wonder if you are OK with reassigning bugs to 5.1 component.
16:33:42 scribe: Marks
16:33:58 scribe: chaals
16:34:15 PC: You are asking to reopen these bugs taht were on an old component?
16:34:19 MS/LW: Yes
16:34:28 PC: If you reopen it from an old component, how do you bring it to the attention of the editors.
16:34:48 PC: So how would it get drawn to attention of 5.1 editors? You propose to change the component, right?
16:34:48 LW: Yep.
16:34:48 PC: How many bugs?
16:34:54 MS: Maybe a dozen.
16:35:18 q+
16:35:40 PC: I'm flexible. Please do this very transparently if it is what you are doing. Give people an opportunity to see what you are doing. Don't just quietly change the component - nobody will notice
16:35:40 PC: Suggest its done transparently, so that everyone knows what is going on. Changing the component is not very obvious.
16:35:58 LW: Will it be enough to include a comment in the bug e.g. "mass-moved to…"
16:36:13 PC: I don't think this is the same as Mike's example
16:36:33 PLH: Don't think we want the HTML 51 editors to work on those bugs yet.
16:36:42 … would be good to clarify to them what we expect them to do.
16:36:55 LW: Responsibility is clearly on the TF to provide rationale for changing the status…
16:37:08 PLH: OK. So until we have that info don't reopen the bugs.
16:37:11 PC: Agree.
16:37:42 … I presumed you had the rationale before you were doing that. I suggest working on them in the TF first.
16:37:45 q
16:37:48 s/q//
16:37:50 q+
16:37:54 ack pl
16:38:05 …at that time changing the compenent makes sense
16:38:09 ack me
16:38:13 scribe: MarkS
16:38:44 CN: Does that cause trouble for the Bug Triage team? Should they be moved to the a11y component?
16:39:35 ...component is better than a keyword
16:40:09 PC: I'm not convinced that moving bugs through components is what we want.
16:40:51 CN: We're saying these are not in HTML5 anymore, they are not ready for HTML5.1 so lets move them to a11y component until the TF is in agreement what they want to do with the bug.
16:41:09 CS: What about putting them in 5.1 and assigning them to a member of the TF
16:42:05 CM: Is this something that the bug triage could take directly to editors of html?
16:42:08 LW: yes
16:42:16 ACTION: Leonie to figure out how to sort out this process
16:42:16 Error finding 'Leonie'. You can review and register nicknames at .
16:42:17 PC: there is a component HTML a11y TF.
16:42:40 ...last time we talked aobu this, we said we wouldn't use it.
16:42:43 CM: This is the use case we intended it to be used for.
16:42:55 zakim, agenda?
16:42:55 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:42:56 4. Bug Triage [from chaals]
16:42:56 5. Any other business? [from chaals]
16:42:56 6. DOM report from PF [from chaals]
16:42:56 7. staffing HTML to API mapping guide [from chaals]
16:44:03 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13434 Bug 13434 - Media element section does not state that tracks are to be synchronized with video
16:44:28 scribe: chaals
16:45:32 MS: We thought this is editorial...
16:45:41 DM: Is there any way of misinterpreting this?
16:45:47 MS: That was our concern
16:46:05 JS: There is a use case for non-sychronisation, e.g. when yu are speed-reading a transcript.
16:46:12 q?
16:46:26 DM: Do we want to require it to be synched?
16:46:41 LW: A transcript would be the non-time-dependent component.
16:46:46 To LW: See http://tinyurl.com/jvo4sq8 which indicates there are 4 bugs in the HTML A11Y TF component. I expected it to be empty.
16:47:00 JS: We had a proposal for synchronied timescript. Didn't get consensus
16:47:06 LW: Isn't that captions?
16:47:27 CS: There was a discussion 2-3 years ago about using track for transcripts, but was knocked back 2-3 years ago.
16:47:41 LW: Question from Bug triage is whether the bug is an editorial change request
16:48:03 JS: I think it is implicit that there is a use case for synchronisation, but does requiring that break the other use case of just reading the track?
16:48:12 DM: Is there a mechanism to grab it?
16:48:14 q+
16:48:38 JS: It is a user agent question - and I think part of what Apple wanted to achieve. THey thought it was a mainstream requirement for that use case.
16:48:55 … e.g. enable higlighting the link to it
16:49:14 DM: If you ahve no timing there isn't captioning.
16:49:19 scribe: MarkS
16:49:42 CM: UA guidelines state that you should be able to get at that text, not HTML's job to do that.
16:50:05 ...I'm not convinced we have an issue to resolve here.
16:50:12 +1 to cn
16:50:33 -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13435 Bug 13435 - Editorial changes to The Video element (3 of 5)
16:50:42 ACTION: LW to raise bug 13434 to the TF by email
16:50:42 Created ACTION-233 - Raise bug 13434 to the tf by email [on Léonie Watson - due 2014-03-06].
16:51:16