20:27:59 RRSAgent has joined #svg 20:27:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/12-svg-irc 20:28:01 RRSAgent, make logs public 20:28:01 Zakim has joined #svg 20:28:03 Zakim, this will be GA_SVGWG 20:28:03 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 20:28:04 Meeting: SVG Working Group Teleconference 20:28:04 Date: 12 November 2015 20:28:05 Chair: Cameron 20:28:23 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Nov/0023.html 20:29:57 present+ nikos 20:30:06 present+ ed 20:30:37 present+ heycam 20:31:17 present+ AmeliaBR 20:31:41 BogdanBrinza has joined #svg 20:31:47 present+fesch 20:31:54 WebEx quick-join URL: https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=m55af864d1884d38ad10291441f98b2dd 20:34:52 present+BogdanBrinza 20:35:07 scribenick: Nikos 20:35:13 scribe: Nikos 20:35:16 scribenick: nikos 20:35:24 present+ Tav 20:36:06 Topic: Accessibility Task Force documents 20:36:08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2015Nov/0022.html 20:36:32 AmeliaBR: There's two docs. One is an updated draft, the ARIA team is hoping to publish that next week 20:36:47 ... other is first pass wd - won't be published for a few weeks but if we can sign off on it that would be good 20:36:58 https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/svg-aam/svg-aam.html 20:37:10 ... This is the SVG accessibility api mapping spec 20:37:27 ... Purpose is to define how browsers should map svg specific features to the OS accessibility api 20:37:36 ... that are then used by screen readers, special input devices, etc 20:37:57 ... OS accessibility APIs have a standard way of describing everything and they have to work with the content of the web site as well 20:38:09 ... there's a core accessibility API mapping guide that defines how the basic ARIA roles should map 20:38:16 ... but that doesn't cover the unique features of a given langauge 20:38:33 ... so there'll be a HTML mapping guide, covering form elements and other interactive elements 20:38:39 ... then there's this guide which talks about SVG features 20:38:54 ... Starts with introduction 20:39:22 ... talks about how dom tree maps to simplified accessibility tree that the assisted technologies need to work with 20:39:46 ... Important terms has a long list of terms that are common to all ARIA specs 20:40:01 ... Then there's a section on keyboard navigation that references the new tabindex requirement from SVG 2 20:40:12 ... shouldn't be too controversial - just basic tab index navigation 20:40:27 ...Then we get into the specifics. I should mention the entire TOC of this document mirrors the TOC of the core mapping doc 20:40:37 ... Many of the sections are very short and say follow core spec 20:40:47 ... Where we need SVG specific roles they're described 20:40:57 ... core spec has rules for how elements in general are exposed in this accessibility API 20:41:01 ... and which elements are exposed 20:41:11 ... general approach is to keep it as simple as possible 20:41:21 ... not give unimportant info to assistive tools 20:41:36 ... e.g. hidden content and things that don't have layout information 20:41:56 ... that's where things get trick y with svg because we have a lot of content that isn't rendered directly on screen - filters, gradients, etc 20:42:03 ... there's also much more complex rules for pointer events 20:42:20 ... something can have pointer events even if invisible 20:42:33 ... there's about 6 or 8 options for pointer events 20:42:48 agenda+ new TR stylesheets https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015OctDec/0009.html 20:43:17 ... so we need some svg specific rules that say even if this element does not cause any pixels to change, if it reacts to pointer events then it is still perceivable to a user of a mouse who can see the end result of clicking, therefore it should be accessible to users of assisted tech 20:43:41 ... there's a note explaining that, we need to do some work with the core group on making sure the defs in the core are general enough to account for these svg specifics 20:43:51 ... other editors note is about how we handle desc element 20:44:06 ... svg 1 spec talks about using css to make an alternate presentation of desc 20:44:16 ... so you can display html instead of graphcs - but that doesn't work on any ua 20:44:35 ... so we allow any html in desc but it's not going to display anywhere 20:44:52 ... this is tricky because if something isn't drawn on the screen there's no way for someone to browse to it and read it in a structured way 20:45:02 ... we still use the description, but treat it as plain text 20:45:07 ... similar to an alt 20:45:19 heycam: is there a reason that can't work? 20:45:54 AmeliaBR: there are practical reasons in that it doesn't work now, there's also the more intentional reason that we don't want to encourage a screen reader experience that is disconnected from the visual experience 20:46:19 ... having complex content that doesn't show up on the screen can be problematic and confusing 20:46:32 ... could happen in future, we've talked about it in the TF - that's why we have a note 20:46:47 ... was suggested that we could have html structured tooltips instead of plain text 20:46:58 ... but the tech isn't there yet, and there isn't a framework for creating it 20:47:26 heycam: if the TF has specific suggestions on what should change in SVG 2, then it would be good to hear them 20:47:50 AmeliaBR: right now we want to make sure the text in the SVG 2 spec doesn't imply to authors that they can do things that won't have any effect 20:47:58 ... so might want to add a note to the desc element 20:48:14 ... so although it's allowed, it's not exposed currently to assistive tech 20:48:32 ... I've had complaints from authors about why it doesn't work 20:49:39 AmeliaBR: There are some issues on aria roles 20:49:46 ... part of the second doc is trying to fix this 20:49:54 ... First question is what to do with the use element 20:50:00 ... right now we're mapping it as an image 20:50:05 ... you can't access the internal content 20:50:12 q+ 20:50:16 ... the only way we use the source graphic is as a name and description 20:50:30 ... so we tell browsers to look at the source graphic and see if it has a title instead 20:50:56 ... problem with that is if we end up in SVG 2 moving to a shadow dom based thing, where the contents of teh use element are a complete dom tree that scripts can interact with, then that needs to be reflected in the accessibility tree 20:51:05 ... so depends where the svg 2 spec goes with use 20:51:40 ... svg 1.1 had the element instance tree that could have conceivably be used, but wasn't implemented 20:51:54 ... so there's a note, and we're trying to get feedback from users 20:52:05 ... but we need a decision from SVG WG about how use elements are handled wrt shadow dom specs 20:52:28 ... is there a desire to keep use elements simple and use custom elements for other things? 20:53:19 shepazu: Just want to say that we're requesting approval for updated publication of the AAM spec and publication of the other spec 20:53:34 ... so we have two svg accessibility specs and they're joint deliverables wit the SVG and APA WG 20:53:40 ... we need approval from both WGs to move them forward 20:54:16 ... It's good that Amelia is giving you details on the spec, but we should also open the floor to questions 20:54:39 AmeliaBR: To be clear, these issues, we're planning to publish with them as notes in the document 20:54:56 heycam: that's fine, from what I can see there's not that many issues 20:55:26 shepazu: There is obviously a need for ongoing co-ordination between SVG and accessibility TF about the issues 20:55:39 ... but I don't think these are show stoppers, think we could sort them out in the course of the next publication 20:55:53 ... but it is something the svg wg will ultimately have to be responsible for and accept 20:56:08 heycam: So does anyone have any questions about publication of this first document? 20:56:38 ... And is everyone in favour of publishing? 20:56:51 nikos: yes 20:56:53 shepazu: +1 20:57:04 +1 20:57:36 RESOLUTION: SVG WG endorses publication of a new working draft of the SVG Accessibility API Mappings specification. 20:57:59 AmeliaBR: We'll try to publish that next week - so be quick if you have questions or concerns 20:58:12 ... but it is just an updated WD which we'll continue working on over the next few months 20:58:18 Topic: ARIA Graphics module 20:58:22 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/graphics.html 20:58:39 AmeliaBR: one of the issues we came up with in the mapping guide is there's very few roles for graphics 20:58:44 stakagi has joined #svg 20:58:55 ... image was defined so that all child dom nodes would be ignored 20:59:18 ... that's not useful for SVG where you want people to explore the sub components that might have their own titles and descriptions and event handlers 20:59:25 ... so we need a more nuanced approach to graphics 20:59:38 ... Long term goal is to create an ARIA model for describing charts and graphs 20:59:49 ... where assistive tech can add extra understanding 20:59:53 ... we're not there yet 21:00:05 ... this is a basic set of roles for describing structured graphics 21:00:15 ... where components have titles and description 21:00:25 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/graphics.html#roles 21:00:35 ... That section defines the new roles 21:00:48 ... Graphics document is the default role for the svg element 21:01:24 ... Difference from exiting image is that graphics-doc has meaningful child content 21:01:25 q+ 21:01:52 heycam: What would be the difference between the experience if you have inline SVG that does have graphics-doc and one that doesn't? 21:02:27 AmeliaBR: Assuming the alternative is what browsers currently do - they map to a grouping role or an existing graphics role that doesn't have an ARIA equivalent 21:02:46 ... they wouldn't see a lot - in future, new tools might allow arrow key navigation instead of dom order navigation 21:02:59 ... or other things, if you have a braille doc it could be aware you're dealing with graphics content 21:03:15 heycam: so it's an indication that there's 2d presented information that isn't some hierarchically ordered document? 21:03:31 AmeliaBR: the assumption is with a plain text doc that there's a single reading order 21:03:35 ... with graphics that doesn't always work 21:03:49 ... so the new role is a signal to tech that they can apply different heuristics 21:03:55 ... based on 2d layout 21:04:04 ... we're not defining what they would be yet, just enabling that 21:04:58 shepazu: So what we're defining is a framework for future work 21:05:29 ... want to allow accessible visualisations and allow screen readers to explore them in novel ways 21:05:42 AmeliaBR: there'll either be separate domain specific specs or a level 2 of this document 21:05:54 heycam: so we have the graphics-doc role that says the whole document is an explorable graphic 21:06:17 AmeliaBR: graphics-doc is an alternative to group 21:07:07 s/graphics-doc is an alternative/graphics-object is an alternative 21:07:24 ... it's adding semantics so distinctions between groups in a document can be described 21:07:30 ... final role is graphics-symbol 21:08:02 ... for things that are conceptually a categorical item - e.g. data points on scatter plot or astrological male and female symbols 21:08:11 ... you don't want to delve inside these objects 21:08:21 ... this is the role we will propose as the default role for basic shapes in SVG 21:09:43 ... The idea is that these roles will become default roles for SVG. We haven't updated to the other spec to refer to this one yet as we won't be publishing this one until December. But there's notes currently. 21:11:36 ed: anyone opposed to publishing this document? 21:11:45 BogdanBrinza: no 21:12:08 RESOLUTION: SVG WG approves publication of WAI-ARIA Graphics Module draft 21:12:35 AmeliaBR: if any of you have time to have a look at these specs, and especially the editor's note 21:12:44 ... we are looking for examples of use 21:13:41 Topic: new TR stylesheets 21:13:42 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015OctDec/0009.html 21:13:56 shepazu: You can see an example 21:14:25 ... in 2016, all published specs will need to use these style sheets 21:14:34 ... so we need to make sure our specs will work with this style 21:14:43 http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/design/w3c-restyle/2016/sample 21:15:16 ... Have seen some problems when there's a large table or if there's a large image. Because the spec space is now narrower, that can be a problem 21:15:39 But starting in Jan we'll be publishing with these styles, so we might need to do some changes to the spec generation scripts 21:16:41 ... This is almost all CSS - there's very little change to the markup 21:17:02 ... we haven't updated our style for 15 years. Future revisions may include script libraries and other things to improve it 21:17:16 ... but for the moment, it's almost all just style sheet changes 21:17:35 AmeliaBR: Have you tried to put the style sheet on our current specs? 21:17:43 shepazu: not yet, but we should 21:17:47 AmeliaBR: maybe a branch on github 21:17:57 Tav: annotations aren't included in this 21:18:08 shepazu: Still working on that 21:18:55 shepazu: One of the points of this is that we want to start encouraging a common style for all W3C specs 21:19:24 ... We'll try to find the best practices and apply them to all specs 21:19:30 ... each group may still need variations of course 21:23:51 RRSAgent, make minutes 21:23:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/12-svg-minutes.html nikos 21:24:21 we'll have a spec editing session next week, and due to thanksgiving the telcon after that will be cancelled 23:24:16 jdaggett has joined #svg