IRC log of html-a11y on 2014-03-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

22:05 [Zakim]
+jaymunro; got it
22:05 [MarkS__]
-> http://www.w3.org/2014/03/17-html-a11y-minutes.html Minutes from last meeting
22:05 [MarkS__]
hey jay, I'm going to be a few minutes late.
22:05 [Zakim]
+??P2
22:05 [janina]
zakim, ??P2 is me
22:05 [Zakim]
+janina; got it
22:05 [Zakim]
+MarkS
22:05 [MarkS]
scribe: MarkS
22:05 [MarkS]
agenda?
22:06 [Zakim]
sees 7 items remaining on the agenda:
22:06 [Zakim]
1. Review progress from previous week (pixels to paths, coordinates of hit region, mouse events) [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
2. Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
3. Discuss feedback from Jacob Rossi [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
4. Establish definitive timeline for Level 1 [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
5. Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
6. Possible Coordination meeting at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 [from MarkS__]
22:06 [Zakim]
7. Next Meeting [from MarkS__]
22:06 [MarkS]
zakim, take up next item
22:06 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Review progress from previous week (pixels to paths, coordinates of hit region, mouse events)" taken up [from MarkS__]
22:07 [MarkS]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#hit-regions
22:07 [MarkS]
JM: I changed pixels to paths
22:07 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft.a]
22:08 [MarkS]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] is JatinderMann
22:08 [Zakim]
+JatinderMann; got it
22:09 [MarkS]
MS: Jay you had some questions in an off-list email, did those get resolved?
22:11 [MarkS]
JM: i wasn't sure if we should take the section on clearing regions, or reword it.
22:15 [JatinderMann]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0071.html
22:20 [MarkS]
zakim, take up next item
22:20 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking" taken up [from MarkS__]
22:20 [MarkS]
zakim, take up item 3
22:20 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Discuss feedback from Jacob Rossi" taken up [from MarkS__]
22:20 [JatinderMann]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0061.html
22:21 [MarkS]
JMann: accessing regions by ID is clumsy, why not just reference by the associated element
22:22 [MarkS]
...we can talk about his on list, get Rik's opinion. we won't need the dictionary if we just require the control and not the ID
22:22 [MarkS]
...for level 1 spec purposed, the dictionary just has control and ID.
22:23 [MarkS]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#hit-regions
22:23 [MarkS]
MS: will that cause any problems when L2 comes around?
22:23 [MarkS]
JMann: yes it will. OK.
22:23 [MarkS]
...perhaps we should continue using the dictionary.
22:24 [MarkS]
...should also still question the requirement for ID
22:24 [MarkS]
...it currently sounds like even control is optional
22:24 [JatinderMann]
“If the control member is null or no such region currently exists, let previous region for the control be null.”
22:25 [MarkS]
MS: i think that needs to be there for L2 when developers can create "virtual" fallback content and define aria roles states and properties directly in canvas code.
22:26 [MarkS]
JMann: i only showed Jacob L1 spec
22:26 [MarkS]
...in the context of L1, having control be optional doesn't a make sense
22:27 [MarkS]
...if we build on this in L2, there is a potential compatibility issue.
22:28 [MarkS]
...it sees like Jacob is finding things that don't make sense when you don't know that its there for L2
22:28 [MarkS]
...want to hear Rik's opinion on why ID and control are optional
22:29 [MarkS]
...the argument type (dictionary) isn't defined any where.
22:29 [MarkS]
...i think its a simple oversight
22:30 [MarkS]
...would want to add the dictionary in, with just control, but that is going to be awkward for developers.
22:31 [MarkS]
...i think we should clarify the reason why we have only one item (control) in the dictionary.
22:31 [*]
richardschwerdtfeger I am back on
22:32 [MarkS]
...he also said there was no way to access the hit region. only add it, and remove it.
22:32 [MarkS]
RS: that is bad.
22:32 [MarkS]
JMann: i should be able to iterate through hit regions
22:32 [MarkS]
...we could reference it by control.
22:33 [MarkS]
RS: we don't have Path yet.
22:33 [MarkS]
JMann: we could expose a list of hit regions.
22:33 [MarkS]
RS: need a new method that allows us to access the list and add or remove items from it
22:34 [MarkS]
JMann: what are the use cases. I would want to change the path of the hit region.
22:34 [MarkS]
RS: if its by ID you could replace it. Just require that they have an ID in order...
22:35 [MarkS]
JMann: jacob's feedback was that we should reference by control's id, not the id of the region.
22:35 [MarkS]
...use the DOM id for the hit region.
22:36 [MarkS]
...for L1 spec, we don't have path, fill rule, etc only a dictionary of one item. Do we need a dictionary, for only one item. but that is because of L2, which will require a dictionary.
22:36 [MarkS]
RS: Explain it in a note that this will be expanded in L2.
22:37 [MarkS]
JMann: it was interesting feedback from someone who only looked at the L1 spec.
22:37 [MarkS]
...the other thing is that the spec says that you don't have to specify a control, why would control be optional?
22:39 [MarkS]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#canvas-mouseevent-rerouting-steps
22:41 [MarkS]
MS: its for hixie's concept of unbacked regions
22:41 [MarkS]
JMann: if we don't do label and role in L1, we have to make sure that control is required.
22:41 [MarkS]
RS: I agree
22:42 [MarkS]
...not sure unbacked region will go anywhere.
22:43 [MarkS]
JMann: the spec should handle pointer events. inherit mouse events. Wherever we talk about a mouse event being fired, we should also talk about pointer events being fired. The next question is about touch events.
22:43 [MarkS]
RS: what do we say about touch events in the HTML5 spec
22:44 [MarkS]
JMann: there is no active work being done on touch events. I think they are deprecated for pointer events
22:44 [MarkS]
RS: i think so
22:44 [Zakim]
+??P5
22:44 [MarkS]
JMann: i think safari and chrome support touch events.
22:44 [Zakim]
-janina
22:45 [janina]
zakim, ??P5 is me
22:45 [Zakim]
+janina; got it
22:45 [MarkS]
JMann: it sounds like we're taking all of jacob's feedback, remove ID, make control required, we keep the dictionary, figure out a way to expose and iterate through hit regions and to add pointer events to the spec.
22:46 [Zakim]
-janina
22:46 [MarkS]
RS: Doug is saying that apple doesn't want it
22:47 [MarkS]
JMann: lets start with pointer events. if we get feedback on touch events, we can deal with it then.
22:47 [Zakim]
+??P2
22:47 [MarkS]
...it would get complicated if we supported touch events.
22:47 [janina]
zakim, ??P2 is me
22:47 [Zakim]
+janina; got it
22:47 [MarkS]
JMann: I'll work with Jay to get these changes made.
22:48 [MarkS]
...post to mailing list as well
22:48 [MarkS]
JM: sounds like we will be adding new methods for exposing hit regions list.
22:48 [MarkS]
JMann: will talk to jacob about how he envisioned that working.
22:48 [MarkS]
...will follow up with him on that.
22:49 [MarkS]
MS: will also have to file bugs on WHAT WG for these new methods.
22:50 [MarkS]
JMann: and a bug on pointer events too
22:50 [MarkS]
MS: I think we should propose spec text with rationale
22:51 [MarkS]
JMann: I'm good with that.
22:51 [MarkS]
zakim, take up next item
22:51 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking" taken up [from MarkS__]
22:51 [MarkS]
zakim, take up item 4
22:51 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Establish definitive timeline for Level 1" taken up [from MarkS__]
22:52 [MarkS]
JMann: we have good feedback. would love to hear dominic's take on these changes. make sure implementors are OK with changes.
22:54 [MarkS]
JM: we will drop ID, we will change mouse to refer to mouse and pointer. and there is the method to access the hit region list.
22:56 [MarkS]
JMann: have to go throughout he processing model, capture all processes for control.
22:56 [MarkS]
...i think we can do this in a week. next week review changes.
22:57 [MarkS]
JMann: I'd rather get feedback early and change it. It's painful but good. I think it is looking good, hard to say until we get feedback from other implementers.
23:00 [MarkS]
...is it good enough to add a getter method and then something to add and remove
23:00 [MarkS]
...or an update method that handles it
23:00 [MarkS]
...right now we can only link it to an element. what are the use cases. would we link it to a different element? add a path?
23:00 [MarkS]
...I'll come up with something to propose.
23:00 [MarkS]
MS: OK, so we will get feedback from dominic on list RE: changes proposed today and share L1 spec with changes already agreed upon for review. Once we have feedback from both dominic and ric it will be easier to establish a timeline.
23:01 [Zakim]
-JatinderMann
23:01 [Zakim]
-Rich_Schwerdtfeger
23:01 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
23:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/24-html-a11y-irc