17:47:14 trackbot, start meeting 17:47:14 * trackbot is preparing a teleconference. 17:47:17 RRSAgent, make logs world 17:47:17 I have made the request, trackbot 17:47:18 Zakim, this will be 2119 17:47:19 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_HTML AT()6:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 17:47:20 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 17:47:20 Date: 31 March 2014 17:47:21 zakim, clear agenda 17:47:21 agenda cleared 17:49:39 agenda+ Review progress from previous week 17:49:39 agenda+ control Required or not via Jatinder [4] 17:49:39 agenda+ ID Required or not via Jay M [5] 17:49:39 agenda+ Singular CTM and currentTransform from WHAT WG via Rik [6] 17:49:39 agenda+ Reply to Sam/Timeline [7] 17:49:39 agenda+ Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [8] 17:49:39 agenda+ Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft 17:49:39 agenda+ Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 17:49:39 agenda+ Next Meeting 17:49:39 agenda+ Review progress from previous week 17:49:39 agenda+ control Required or not via Jatinder [4] 17:49:40 agenda+ ID Required or not via Jay M [5] 17:49:42 agenda+ Singular CTM and currentTransform from WHAT WG via Rik [6] 17:49:43 * Zakim notes agendum 1 added 17:49:44 * Zakim notes agendum 2 added 17:49:44 * Zakim notes agendum 3 added 17:49:44 * Zakim notes agendum 4 added 17:49:46 agenda+ Reply to Sam/Timeline [7] 17:49:46 * Zakim notes agendum 5 added 17:49:48 agenda+ Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [8] 17:49:48 * Zakim notes agendum 6 added 17:49:50 agenda+ Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft 17:49:50 * Zakim notes agendum 7 added 17:49:52 agenda+ Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 17:49:52 * Zakim notes agendum 8 added 17:49:56 agenda+ Next Meeting 17:49:56 * Zakim notes agendum 9 added 17:51:18 Meeting: Canvas Accessibility Sub-Group Teleconference 17:51:30 Chair: MarkS 17:51:37 Scribe: MarkS 17:55:44 agenda+ Exposing the hit region list 17:55:46 * Zakim notes agendum 10 added 17:56:07 zakim, agenda order is 1,2,10,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 17:56:07 ok, MarkS 17:56:42 agenda+ PointerEvents and event handling 17:56:42 * Zakim notes agendum 11 added 17:56:50 agenda? 17:56:50 * Zakim sees 11 items remaining on the agenda: 17:56:51 * Zakim 1. Review progress from previous week [from MarkS] 17:56:51 * Zakim 2. control Required or not via Jatinder [from 4 via MarkS] 17:56:51 * Zakim 10. Exposing the hit region list [from MarkS] 17:56:51 * Zakim 3. ID Required or not via Jay M [from 5 via MarkS] 17:56:51 * Zakim 4. Singular CTM and currentTransform from WHAT WG via Rik [from 6 via MarkS] 17:56:52 * Zakim 5. Reply to Sam/Timeline [from 7 via MarkS] 17:56:53 * Zakim 6. Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [from 8 via MarkS] 17:56:53 * Zakim 7. Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft [from MarkS] 17:56:53 * Zakim 8. Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 [from MarkS] 17:56:53 * Zakim 9. Next Meeting [from MarkS] 17:56:53 * Zakim 11. PointerEvents and event handling [from MarkS] 17:57:01 zakim, agenda order is 1,2,10,11,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 17:57:01 ok, MarkS 17:58:48 WAI_HTML AT()6:00PM has now started 17:58:55 +??P0 18:00:27 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger 18:00:33 +Mark_Sadecki 18:01:09 give me a minute, audio problems. 18:01:29 +cabanier 18:01:45 zakim, ??P0 is Janina 18:01:45 +Janina; got it 18:01:59 agenda? 18:01:59 * Zakim sees 11 items remaining on the agenda: 18:02:01 * Zakim 1. Review progress from previous week [from MarkS] 18:02:01 * Zakim 2. control Required or not via Jatinder [from 4 via MarkS] 18:02:01 * Zakim 10. Exposing the hit region list [from MarkS] 18:02:01 * Zakim 11. PointerEvents and event handling [from MarkS] 18:02:01 * Zakim 3. ID Required or not via Jay M [from 5 via MarkS] 18:02:01 * Zakim 2. control Required or not via Jatinder [from 4 via MarkS] 18:02:02 * Zakim 4. Singular CTM and currentTransform from WHAT WG via Rik [from 6 via MarkS] 18:02:02 * Zakim 5. Reply to Sam/Timeline [from 7 via MarkS] 18:02:03 * Zakim 6. Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [from 8 via MarkS] 18:02:03 * Zakim 8. Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 [from MarkS] 18:02:03 * Zakim 9. Next Meeting [from MarkS] 18:02:03 * Zakim 7. Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft [from MarkS] 18:02:03 +[Microsoft] 18:02:08 zakim, microsoft has me 18:02:08 +jaymunro; got it 18:03:08 zakim, remove item 4 18:03:08 agendum 4, Singular CTM and currentTransform from WHAT WG via Rik, dropped 18:03:15 zakim, agenda? 18:03:15 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 18:03:16 1. Review progress from previous week [from MarkS] 18:03:16 2. control Required or not via Jatinder [from 4 via MarkS] 18:03:16 10. Exposing the hit region list [from MarkS] 18:03:16 11. PointerEvents and event handling [from MarkS] 18:03:16 3. ID Required or not via Jay M [from 5 via MarkS] 18:03:17 5. Reply to Sam/Timeline [from 7 via MarkS] 18:03:17 6. Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [from 8 via MarkS] 18:03:17 7. Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft [from MarkS] 18:03:17 8. Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 [from MarkS] 18:03:18 9. Next Meeting [from MarkS] 18:03:21 zakim, take up item 1 18:03:21 agendum 1. "Review progress from previous week" taken up [from MarkS] 18:03:47 JM: Pixels to Path work is complete. 18:04:03 ...I took out ID but based on discussion, I put that back in as required. 18:04:31 ...I need feedback on the interface for accessing hit regions and hit regions list 18:05:05 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014JanMar/0191.html hit region list interface 18:05:40 +[Microsoft.a] 18:06:11 JM: on hitRegionList, to access items, we don't currently know what the index will be. I added HitREgionOptions to accomplish that, but I'm not sure if that is going to work for implementers 18:06:21 ...looking for feedback on that approach 18:06:28 RC: I'm not sure that we need this. 18:06:49 JMann: you can keep your own list in JS 18:08:17 JM: I put ID back in, I had taken it out, but I referenced Level 2 and saw that it was referenced in the WebIDL. I added it back but took out required 18:08:34 zakim, take up item 2 18:08:34 agendum 2. "control Required or not via Jatinder" taken up [from 4 via MarkS] 18:09:07 JMann: should we require ID or not? Last call, we said we shouldn't, waiting to hear from Rik on that. 18:09:19 ...you can always use the ID of the control 18:09:37 RC: What if there is no control, like if you are drawing a dialog on top of an existing button. 18:09:48 JMann: so do we want to support the unbacked regions? 18:09:54 RC: one or the other, or both 18:10:18 JMann: so for Level 1, we won't support unbacked region but because we want to be forward compatible, we ... 18:10:28 RC: how will we remove an item, since that requires an ID 18:10:40 JMann: for Level 1, control is required. 18:10:53 ...for Level 2, control will be optional 18:11:09 RC: it sounds like you won't be able to change that for Level 2 18:11:25 * MarkS missed the meme 18:12:06 JMann: to be forward compatible with Level 2, we need to make control optional. 18:12:11 ...which is how the spec has it. 18:12:24 RC: but they cannot both be absent 18:12:36 JM: correct, I suggested that in my email 18:13:04 ...I will add that to the spec then to clarify 18:13:40 JS: Should look for precedent on how that should be written. One of them will be required, 18:14:13 JM: do we want to say the reverse is true? if there is no ID, you must have a control? I'll research that. 18:14:28 JS: we should at least have the concepts out, can perfect it later 18:14:33 zakim, take up next item 18:14:35 agendum 1. "Review progress from previous week" taken up [from MarkS] 18:14:41 zakim, close item 1 18:14:41 agendum 1, Review progress from previous week, closed 18:14:42 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:14:42 10. Exposing the hit region list [from MarkS] 18:15:01 JMann: to remove a hit region, ID is required. 18:15:07 RC: removing a control will also do that. 18:15:49 JM: in the WebIDL it says "remove hit regions(ID)" probably need to make that match 18:16:09 ...and if we want to remove it, you need to specify an ID 18:16:38 JMann: Level 2 removeHitRegion take an ID. so it will match the spec text 18:16:50 RC: it will be a regression issue 18:17:16 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/master/#hit-regions 18:17:47 http://drafts.htmlwg.org/2dcontext/master/#2dcontext 18:18:06 JM: is that the nightly? I'm not seeing that. The WebIDL and the spec text both say they take multiple options 18:18:28 void removeHitRegion(DOMString id); 18:18:30 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas/ 18:19:49 RC: we need to delete that branch or ask someone to turn it off. we want to make sure L1 and L2 match 18:20:17 JM: I'll see who I have to contact to fix that 18:20:28 zakim, take up next item 18:20:33 agendum 10. "Exposing the hit region list" taken up [from MarkS] 18:21:11 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014JanMar/0191.html exposing hit region list 18:22:52 MS: currently is no way to reference an item in the list if we don't know if it has an ID or a control 18:23:52 JM: if hitRegionList returned hitREgionOptions with the right one... 18:24:02 ...we're only working with ID and control in L1 18:24:13 ...what will we be using it for 18:24:42 RC: i think for now, we should leave it up to the author 18:24:47 JM: to track the list himself 18:24:57 RC: is someone strongly in favor of having a list? 18:25:23 JMann: This was raised by Jacob. You're right, the author can keep their own list. 18:25:36 ...Jacob was concerned about being able to update existing items I think. 18:25:55 ...we could have a getRegions that returns a list, or an attribute on which the list existed, but that could be overkill 18:26:18 ...the downside is that if I'm not keeping track, and I add a bunch of regions, it could get difficult to manage. 18:26:31 ...do we think its common to remove hit regions? like a use case in a game? 18:26:41 RS: yeah, sure. You might also be resizing something? 18:27:10 ...I've seen canvas be used for flowcharts. dropping objects, resizing objects, etc. I can see someone doing that. 18:27:25 ...would the author be more likely to reference them by control or ID 18:27:54 JMann: we give you the current path and the ID. can't change fill rule, can't change path,e tc. I wonder if this becomes more important in the L2 spec. 18:28:13 ...currently, I can just remove and add a new one. you can remove by ID, or remove the control itself. 18:28:19 ...then create a new one 18:28:58 JMann: you can walk through the DOM and remove the controls to accomplish this. 18:29:28 RS: we talked about this in ARIA RE: Webcomponents. I would limit the number of ways you can reference things, at least for L1 18:30:08 JMann: Jacob raised this from an API design POV. IS there an advantage to exposing the list to developers. Probably not beyond the developer who can maintain his own list, or walk the DOM 18:30:19 ...It may not be worth the additional complexity 18:30:53 JM: You were talking earlier about changing the hit region. wouldn't that just happen if you make a new path and assign the control to the new path. wouldn't that replace the old one? 18:31:03 RC: the other one would draw on top. 18:31:59 JM: If you create a new path, then call addHitRegion with an ID that was previously used, shouldn't it just replace the old one? 18:33:04 agenda? 18:33:04 * Zakim sees 8 items remaining on the agenda: 18:33:05 * Zakim 10. Exposing the hit region list [from MarkS] 18:33:05 * Zakim 11. PointerEvents and event handling [from MarkS] 18:33:05 * Zakim 3. ID Required or not via Jay M [from 5 via MarkS] 18:33:05 * Zakim 5. Reply to Sam/Timeline [from 7 via MarkS] 18:33:05 * Zakim 6. Review WHAT WG spec changes for cherry picking [from 8 via MarkS] 18:33:06 * Zakim 7. Continued review of Hit Regions in Editor's Draft [from MarkS] 18:33:08 * Zakim 8. Confirmation of attendees at HTML WG F2F April 8-9 [from MarkS] 18:33:08 * Zakim 9. Next Meeting [from MarkS] 18:33:53 ...If you don't redraw the canvas, the old path will still be there? ok. 18:34:13 zakim, take up next item 18:34:13 agendum 11. "PointerEvents and event handling" taken up [from MarkS] 18:34:46 JMann: talking to Jacob on this one. Wherever we say mouse event, we should say pointer event. 18:34:56 RS: are new pointer events implemented in all the browsers? 18:35:13 JMann: I know Chrome and IE or Apple and IE. not sure 18:35:25 RS: did we agree what events we wanted to support? focus? blur? 18:35:59 ...mousein etc 18:36:17 ...did we want to pass the pointer position through to the fallback element or the hit region. 18:36:26 JMann: looking t what we have now. 18:36:43 RC: it currently doesn't say which are supported 18:37:35 ...it doesn't say anything about that 18:37:49 ...it inherits behavior from HTML 18:39:05 RS: does the canvas element handle all of this? do we need all the mouse events? 18:41:05 zakim, take up next item 18:41:05 agendum 3. "ID Required or not via Jay M" taken up [from 5] 18:41:37 zakim, take up item 11 18:41:37 agendum 11. "PointerEvents and event handling" taken up [from MarkS] 18:42:08 JM: looking at WHAT WG spec, their pointer events look more like our Level 2. more specific pointer event support. 18:42:51 RC: yes, they have made a lot of changes there. It seems unclear what it is doing. Seems like they are adding support for WebApps or something 18:44:02 ...waht should happen when you click on a hyperlink (fallback content) for instance 18:44:46 ...we could send the events to the canvas element, which would still be forwards compatible. 18:45:42 RS: do you have to do all the hit testing yourself? 18:46:10 RC: no, but the author would write the code to handle certain mouse events or pass it through to the fallback 18:46:19 ...just standard event handling. 18:46:25 ...with the ID of the hit region 18:46:44 ...this is the ID of the hit region. 18:46:58 RS: would need to reference the control by ID too 18:48:07 JM: seems like having a standard interface to do this (ref by ID) is ideal. Argument for making ID required. 18:49:44 RS: the only thing that worries me about ID, in ARIA we talked about using query-selectors to reference stuff in shadow dom 18:49:53 ...worry about limiting this to just ID 18:50:16 RC: if we say an ID is not required, you just wouldn't get the event handling, still get accessibility 18:51:44 RS: I think it would be better to just focus on the hit testing behavior rather than how to reference elements in case we want to change that in the future 18:51:51 RC: seem alike a big change 18:52:04 s/seem alike/seems like 18:52:49 RS: I think managing the list of hit regions, with everything in 2.0 might be better to just focus on the dispatching. 18:52:53 RC: that is the hardest part 18:53:46 RS: isn't there a javascript dispatch event that you can use to retarget it? 18:54:06 RC: harder from the UA perspective. easy from JS. lots of special case handling 18:55:44 JMann: I wanted to hear from implementers about whether or not this would be a difficult approach, bad for performance, etc. 18:56:01 RC: It seems like its easy until you have to do event retargeting. 18:56:21 ...may be an issue when things scale to hundreds of hit regions. 18:56:32 ...if the browser doesn't manage it, the author does. 18:58:04 JMann: so today, a listener on the fallback will not get the event. 18:58:15 RS: the authors need to supply an ID if they want to control that. 18:59:05 ...I would use the same ID i used in the fallback content to make it easier. 18:59:13 JMann: seems like we should add that ability. 19:00:28 MS: how about if we specify that if you specify the control's ID but not the hit regions' ID, the hit regions automatically gets the same ID as the fallback element? 19:00:37 RS: not a bad idea 19:01:42 RESOLUTION: canvas element will handle event handling from the hit testing, and will not handle dispatching the event. 19:02:16 RS: what about remove a node? in terms of hit region management. 19:04:13 JM: if you set the control('s ID) and that was duplicated in the ID of the hit regions. Why would you need both? 19:04:22 RS: wouldn't if you could guarantee they were the same 19:04:56 JMann: why not just require the controls's ID 19:05:26 ...right now they have to control the mapping 19:05:36 RS: any compatibility issues when we go to L2 19:05:51 ...may also have to reference things by selectors. 19:06:02 ...i think webcomponents will affect this. 19:06:09 RC: should we wait until this is ready? 19:06:47 RS: imagine a web component in the fallback content of canvas... 19:06:50 -[Microsoft.a] 19:08:03 JM: so hit region interfaces are being left out for now and we are not specifying whether ID or control are required or not until we work through this issue. 19:08:50 JS: we are going to get pressure from HTML WG on extra time for this 19:09:01 RS: I think we are making great progress and are almost done here. 19:09:13 RC: may be we should add an API to clear all hit regions. 19:09:19 ...add clearRect() back in 19:10:15 ...its still in the WHAT WG spec 19:10:59 RS: lets add clearRect() back in. can do a clearRect() on the entire canvas to remove all the hit regions. 19:11:15 RC: its still in L2 that way 19:11:28 s/RC/JM 19:11:43 RC: its a little funky 19:11:49 RS: what about clearHitRegions() 19:11:56 RC: I like that 19:12:29 JM: OK, so we are going to add clearHitRegions, not clearRect and change mouse to pointer events 19:12:48 RC: I don't think we should do pointer event change just yet. 19:13:04 RS: we need to talk to other browsers to see if they are supporting hit regions yet. 19:13:14 s/hit regions/pointer events 19:13:35 JM: ID and control are still up in the air. 19:14:19 RS: I think we should leave it up to the author to manage ID's etc. 19:14:51 -Rich_Schwerdtfeger 19:14:52 -cabanier 19:14:54 -Mark_Sadecki 19:14:56 -Janina 19:14:58 -[Microsoft] 19:14:58 WAI_HTML AT()6:00PM has ended 19:14:58 Attendees were Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Mark_Sadecki, cabanier, Janina, jaymunro, [Microsoft] 19:15:04 rrsagent, make minutes 19:15:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/31-html-a11y-minutes.html MarkS