See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 October 2014
<janina> chair: Charles
<scribe> ScribeNick: ShaneM
We don't have a directors decision yet. Any day now.
We are expecting bugs to be filed on it - including bugs that will be related to the longdesc decision.
scribe: waiting on cleaning the spec up until after that decision.
So, if you think you have a bug, file it now.
<paulc> Charles does a good job of "channeling" Paul.
<rubys> My understanding is that Rik and Rich are on the same page: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014JulSep/0047.html
janina: Rich was writing tests,
and uncovered this issue.
... There is no requirement in the published spec to expose
'hit regions' to the A11Y APIs.
... Not clear how we got into this situation, but it was
expected to have been in the spec all along. It is why A11Y
pushed for hit regions in the spec.
... It is not thought to be controversial at all.
... There are some implementations already. If the requirement
had been in the spec, we could quickly add the tests and it
would quickly pass.
... we would really like to see this requirement in this spec.
The next spec is not soon enough.
RS: Hit Region was added to the release for A11Y. Mark was already doing tests.
MS: The mistake could have
happened during edits on hit regions - possibly during
transitions. We should probably do some research to figure out
how the requirement disappeared.
... I have been doing testing, and written apps that use these
new features. Most of it focuses upon fallback content.
... I have not done testing to see if a defined hit region gets
its location updated via the A11Y API.
... I am not sure it would have relevance unless the item
received focus.
<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to comment that Janina's sentiment doesn't come through in Rich's email
chaals: Note that we do not need to get into a technical discussion. We just need to decide what to do.
<rubys> The next teleconference is next Friday: https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_6495
rubys: We need to get the public
statements clear. The mail from rich is not consistent with
what is being said in this meeting.
... we should get all the data we can back to the canvas
editors.
<chaals> scribe: chaals
JB: I knew there were messages, didn't no someone saying it would be OK to wait for 2.0...
… we need to get those pieces back for this version. Work out how things got dropped and how to pick them up again.
… and there is a procedural issue - what dowe need to do if we put things back in. Depending on where and when they were dropped? WOuld the new process help here?
<scribe> scribe: shanem
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: first we need to verify and then we need to get it fixed.
chaals: Note that if we move to the new process, then we could go straight into the CR again. That is up to the HTML Working Group.
janina: I agree that we need to
clean up the messaging. But it may be tricky because
individuals have opinions.
... PF discussed it yesterday and thought a fix soon is
important. If there is a level 1 that doesn't have it and then
a level 2 a month later that might be okay. Since that is
unlikely PF would object to putting it off.
<rubys> Just to be clear: I simply want to connect the right people to have the right discussions. At the moment PF is having discussions without bring the results back to the canvas editors.
paulc: Strongly encourage the canvas task force to do all the testing and the edits. Let's not rush to judgement before we know the full scope of the changes and whether there is implementation support.
Judy: I understand that for this specific item we need to figure out what the changes are, but we don't think there are other items.
paulc: If there are other things
that could be uncovered through testing, let's uncover that
now.
... Also there is a new canvas TF. If PF has concerns, those
should be conveyed to the new TF.
janina: Should we do a full review and test all sorts of things, or just cover this item?
paulc: Yes. Do everything you can to figure out what is missing, provide tests, and then propose how to process a document modified to satisfy the PF requirements.
richardschwerdtfeger: Screen reader users may want to magnify to focus on things.
<janina> Noting also that PC suggested an editor's revision of the CR doc with missing feature included for testing
richardschwerdtfeger: you
probably can get away with draw focus if needed, but you would
need to call it on all regions and fallback content. That can
be expensive. The reason it was added to hit region was to give
the authors some benefit.
... note that hit region will change for version 2.
... if this is not already implemented in the browsers today
(and it may not have been) we are in a position where that is
going to take a very long time.
... if that is the case then we might want to wait until a
version 2 rather than delay version 1.
... there is a lot of stuff in canvas 2.
chaals: Let's be sure we have
tests written that cover what we think should be in the spec.
That way we can decide better what should be included in this
version.
... basic understanding is that hit region is supposed to be in
version 1 and it is not. We need to send a message to the HTML
WG saying 'hey something went wrong and this fell out of the
draft'.
... but we need tests before we make a decision so we will know
if we can still pass CR easily, or if we need to include the
stuff from version 2 now, or we could wait until version
2.
... are there tests enough now that can guide us in a
recommendation?
<rubys> I support Paul's suggestion: get the technical status clear, then make a concrete proposal.
MarkS: I don't think it would be difficult to write a test to quickly identify if it is supported or not. But I don't have time right now.
richardschwerdtfeger: I will write the testable statements so we know what we need to look for.
chaals: If you think it is
reasonable to go ahead with the stuff we THOUGHT should have
been in version 1, it seems like it is the lowest cost
plan.
... there would need to be a director's meeting, but that's not
too difficult.
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to propose a resolution…
richardschwerdtfeger: if is reasonable if there is good support and we can figure out what got dropped.
Judy: I agree. Let's focus on this for now. Whatever we already negotiated and agreed to, if that got dropped, let's make sure it gets back in.
(general agreement)
<chaals> RESOLUTION: we will work on the assumption that the things that were dropped are useful and implemented. assuming Rich and Mark's testing show taht is the case, we will request that it get put back.
chaals: we can look at this spec and suggest things that should happen. we can do it formally or individually.
<chaals> TTML spec for review
janina: PF regularly looks as last calls and new publications. We have actioned JF to look it over.
JF: It wasn't a formal action, but I have looked at the spec very briefly. There is a section that addreses WCAG considerations. At this point I don't have any burning concerns. If something surfaces I will respond.
chaals: The formal path would be that the TF makes a recommendation and then ask HTML WG to approve and forward the review, that seems heavy weight. Let's leave it to PF to do it since they are tasked with it.
janina: Sure, but this task force is tasked for dealing with issues between HTML and PF. PF will continue to bring things to the TF if coordination is needed.
<chaals> HTML 5.1 items
chaals: We have looked at various aspects of 5.1. We have a wishlist. Do we have concrete proposals?
janina: Trying to lock down a time during TPAC where we can coordinate between PF, HTML, and SVG.
<paulc> Please see how I updated the agenda wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-10-Agenda#F2F_Topics
janina: topics include event enumeration on elements (DOM), digital publishing and PF are meeting, but have things to coordinate with HTML too.
chaals: I would like accesskey to be revamped in 5.1, but I am not going to be available at TPAC
<David> http://davidmacd.com/blog/html51-footnotes.html
paulc: I updated the agenda - a11y are in three parts.
(see the agenda for details)
janina: we dont think there is need to discuss name computation at TPAC
Judy: recommend also check with the UAAG working group on the accesskey stuff
David: put up a link to the beginning of a discussion on footnotes. I would like for us to flesh it out.
janina: we will have call-in capability at TPAC.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say that I would like to champion accesskey
<chaals> SM: I am happyto champion the accesskey discussion
janina: PF has a note from some years ago that is on point w.r.t. captcha. There is a big problem from China about this.
Judy: there is not enough exposure about international a11y issues. We need to pay close attention to it.
chaals: I understand that captcha is important. But how is it relevant to HTML? Is there something that we want to do in HTML 5.1?
janina: I think that is an open question? There can be supporting materials, but not clear if there are HTML language requirements.
<janina> http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest
<janina> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/CAPTCHA_v2
Cyns: I don't think that there have been many improvements since the last version was published. Are there?
<paulc> All of the suggested "possible" topics are now in https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-10-Agenda#F2F_Topics
janina: we have discussed it here. There are some ways it could be improved.
Cyns: There is a WCAG technique for some of the alternate ways of doing Captcha
chaals: I return to my question - how is it relevant to the HTML A11Y Task Force?
janina: You may be right that it is not relevant, but we have not ruled it out.
chaals: We have identified some things that should be covered in HTML. The Wiki should be updated to reflect that.
<David> On WCAG we haven't solved Captcha yet. https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Captcha_Alternatives_and_thoughts
janina: Is cynthia going to have anything ready on menus for TPAC?
Cyns: No.
paulc: The A11Y experts (from IndieUI) have been talking about editing stuff with the WebApps group. If there are things about the joint task force with WebApps / HTML joint task force, those are on the web apps agenda.
janina: we are interested in helping to coordinate that work.
chaals: there is something relevant to this task force. There might be changes to what 'contenteditable' actually does.
paulc: I will add something to the agenda on contenteditable.
Cyn: Can you look me in on that discussion - I am not a member of either group.
janina: A lot if cross posted to IndieUI.
<rubys> http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/tf-charter.html
chaals: Cyns, please send me a reminder.
<paulc> WebApps WG F2F wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/November2014Meeting#Agenda_Monday_October_27
<chaals1> [Thanks to Shane for scribing]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/No comprendo// Succeeded: s/Cool// Succeeded: s/yep, all looks good to me.// Succeeded: s/Charles, I loaded your agenda, taking the liberty to add a few items// Succeeded: s/worked it/ruled it/ Succeeded: s/rssagent, make minutes// Found ScribeNick: ShaneM Found Scribe: chaals Inferring ScribeNick: chaals Found Scribe: shanem Inferring ScribeNick: ShaneM Scribes: chaals, shanem ScribeNicks: ShaneM, chaals Default Present: janina, ShaneM, [IPcaller], Joanmarie_Diggs, Judy, chaals, Sam, Plh, Liam, paulc, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, MarkS, JF, Cynthia_Shelly, David_MacDonald Present: janina ShaneM [IPcaller] Joanmarie_Diggs Judy chaals Sam Plh Liam paulc Rich_Schwerdtfeger MarkS JF Cynthia_Shelly David_MacDonald Found Date: 02 Oct 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/02-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]