14:57:01 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:57:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-html-a11y-irc
14:57:03 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:03 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:57:05 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:57:05 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 57 minutes ago
14:57:06 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:57:06 Date: 11 July 2013
14:57:44 zakim, who's on the phone?
14:57:44 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has not yet started, janina
14:57:45 On IRC I see RRSAgent, David, davidb, MarkS, chaals, SteveF, hober, janina, trackbot, MichaelC
14:58:00 zakim, this will be 2119
14:58:00 ok, janina; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
14:58:11 zakim, who's on the phone?
14:58:11 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has not yet started, janina
14:58:13 On IRC I see RRSAgent, David, davidb, MarkS, chaals, SteveF, hober, janina, trackbot, MichaelC
14:58:45 zakim, this will be WAI_PFWG(HTML A11Y)
14:58:45 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, janina
14:59:24 zakim, this will be WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)
14:59:24 ok, MarkS, I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM already started
14:59:34 zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:34 On the phone I see David_MacDonald, ??P25, MarkS, John_Foliot
14:59:54 zakim, ??P25 is Janina
14:59:54 +Janina; got it
15:00:35 +[IPcaller]
15:00:45 zakim, [ip is chaals
15:00:45 +chaals; got it
15:00:59 Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
15:00:59 Chair: Janina_Sajka
15:00:59 agenda+ Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:01:02 agenda+ Longdesc Status Update
15:01:04 agenda+ Canvas 2d CR Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0000.html
15:01:07 agenda+ Updated Figure Text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jul/0008.html
15:01:10 agenda+ Alt Edits Status Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/0014.html
15:01:13 scribenick: chaals
15:01:13 agenda+ HTML5 testing
15:01:14 +Judy
15:01:16 agenda+ Updated TF Work Statement
15:01:18 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; AAPI Mapping; Media;
15:01:21 agenda+ Other Business
15:01:23 agenda+ Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:01:26 zakim take up agendum 1
15:01:26 agenda+ be done
15:01:33 zakim, close this item
15:01:33 I do not know what agendum had been taken up, chaals
15:01:39 zakim, close agendum 1
15:01:39 agendum 1, Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List, closed
15:01:42 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:01:42 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:01:42 2. Longdesc Status Update [from janina]
15:02:05 Topic: Longdesc status
15:02:32 JS: Calls for Consensus in HTML is ongoing, PF expects to be done this week.
15:02:45 … We could have a Last Call next week.
15:03:15 MS: Regarding announcement. I thought we should mention that we want to skip CR. I think that may be unnecessary.
15:03:17 q+
15:03:49 … haven't found a precedent. I imagine anyone that can would, but there is no need to announce it in advance.
15:03:56 q+
15:04:00 ack me
15:04:09 ack c
15:04:45 +hober
15:05:29 paulc has joined #html-a11y
15:05:38 CMN: +1 to it not being required. Webapps does not announce this at last call - if we can we are likely to talk about it in going to CR, but it isn't always clear that we will manage to do that anyway.
15:06:08 +[Microsoft]
15:06:10 JB: Reasons for and against. Going ahead signals we really want the implementations so we can skip it, and that can help get attention.
15:06:11 q+
15:06:20 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:06:20 +paulc; got it
15:06:21 ack j
15:06:44 q+ to discuss other methods for getting input
15:06:48 … We talk about wanting to reintegrate this into HTML5, and therefore there may be an advantage in not surprising the HTMLWG if we are suddenly ready to add it...
15:06:56 ack c
15:07:21 ack m
15:07:21 MarkS, you wanted to discuss other methods for getting input
15:07:55 CMN: Don't see that we will get anything by making the announcement in the Status - this issue has been running for most of a decade and relevant people are likely to be aware.
15:08:38 MS: Would be happier to make an announcement if we were at a point where we are seriously ready to make the announcement - have tests, draft implementation data already. Once we areat that point I think we should start communicating about this.
15:08:52 JS: Is it common to talk about testing plans at announcements?
15:09:17 JB: In Last Call it is common to talk about plans to build a test suite. But thereis no harm in talking about more if you are further advanced.
15:09:20 q+
15:09:23 q+
15:09:37 plh has joined #html-a11y
15:09:41 +Plh
15:09:44 MS: In email, or in the doc.
15:09:45 ack p
15:09:47 ack pa
15:09:54 rrsagent, generate minutes
15:09:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/11-html-a11y-minutes.html plh
15:10:05 PC: This is why I prefer that the document be finalised including status section before we take it to the WG.
15:10:24 … tried to negotiate a stable version of the document with chaals, but didn't want to delay anything.
15:10:33 … doesn't say how long LC will be, etc.
15:10:38 ack c
15:10:51 +[IPcaller]
15:10:52 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
15:11:06 q+
15:11:54 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:12:07 lwatson has joined #html-a11y
15:13:35 ack j
15:14:43 CMN: Editor's draft says (unless I made a huge mistake) length of last call etc, and was designed to have the minimal changes required clear. I think there is a misunsderstanding because I didn't realise we were discussing an email announcement - I think those are an administrative matter and even if they are wrong it is easy enough to provide a follow-up announcement.
15:15:20 … it is good to announce test plans, integration with HTML etc, but the reality is we don't have those yet. On the other hand, 9 requirements in 60+ days should be easy enough to test.
15:15:27 zakim, close this item
15:15:28 I do not know what agendum had been taken up, chaals
15:15:37 zakim, agenda?
15:15:37 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda:
15:15:38 2. Longdesc Status Update [from janina]
15:15:38 3. Canvas 2d CR Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0000.html [from janina]
15:15:38 4. Updated Figure Text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jul/0008.html [from janina]
15:15:38 5. Alt Edits Status Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/0014.html [from janina]
15:15:39 6. HTML5 testing [from janina]
15:15:39 7. Updated TF Work Statement [from janina]
15:15:39 8. Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; AAPI Mapping; Media; [from janina]
15:15:39 9. Other Business [from janina]
15:15:39 10. Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List [from janina]
15:15:39 11. be done [from janina]
15:15:43 zakim, close item 2
15:15:43 agendum 2, Longdesc Status Update, closed
15:15:45 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:15:45 3. Canvas 2d CR Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0000.html [from janina]
15:15:49 zakim, take up agendum 3
15:15:49 agendum 3. "Canvas 2d CR Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0000.html" taken up [from janina]
15:16:11 JB: Paul's request for a stable version was heard and supported; the version that was sent for review is stable.
15:16:15 JS: There are some issues in dealing with canvas for people who need magnification - we have no implementation as far as we know.
15:16:33 q+
15:16:57 q+
15:17:01 -> http://dev.w3.org/html5/misc/canvas-implementation.html Canvas 2D CR Implementation Status
15:17:02 … we have discussed more time. We want to see those implementations emerge, because they are important in various areas to whether people can adopt canvas as a technology.
15:17:12 q+
15:17:15 q?
15:17:21 ack ju
15:17:24 ack judy
15:17:52 q+ to provide some feedback from outside sources
15:18:28 JB: Believe there is some time flexibility for canvas. Some of us erroneously assumed it was on same timeline as HTML5 CR.
15:19:32 ack r
15:19:33 … there are some gaps known to exist, I think it would be useful to know how much time we have,
15:19:38 …[@@@]
15:20:18 RS: Fallback content has been implemented in Chrome, IE and Firefox, allowing you to map fallback information to accessibility API, plus navigate by keyboard.
15:20:44 … critical issues regarding focus rings. Either of those would be ideal for magnifier when moving focus.
15:20:55 … Cynthia Shelly is going to test it in IE11 now.
15:21:16 … Waiting to hear from Chrome team… the say yes, but we haven't seen it yet.
15:21:32 … Hit-testing is important for maginification, but is hard and we knew it would be at risk.
15:21:53 The CR drafts were very clear about their earliest exit dates:
15:21:56 Canvas: This Candidate Recommendation is expected to advance to Proposed Recommendation no earlier than 17 June 2013.
15:21:59 … Browser-manufacturers want to use a new strategy based on shape instad of path. Google is looking at this for canvas in HTML 5.1
15:22:07 HTML5: This Candidate Recommendation is expected to advance to Proposed Recommendation no earlier than 01 September 2014.
15:22:19 q-
15:22:23 ack d
15:22:26 … as long as you can draw a focus ring, I think that would be a reasonable goal for the short term.
15:22:30 q+
15:22:36 DM: Can test stuff.
15:22:45 q+
15:22:51 ack plh
15:22:52 q?
15:23:00 ack pa
15:23:05 q+ plh
15:23:43 paulc: [I am now living on networks like those in the rest of the world…]
15:24:28 … CR dates were subject to specific calls for consensus in HTML. We don't know if canvas would go to Rec before HTML, but it was widely expected that it would clear CR before HTML would.
15:25:21 -John_Foliot
15:26:00 +John_Foliot
15:26:26 chaals has joined #html-a11y
15:26:52 … Expect that to go for CfC in the next week, lasting probably a month.
15:27:10 … There are some features in canvas that are at risk. Accessibility TF should consider whether things not at risk are accessible - it seems likely the things at risk will just be dropped (IMHO)
15:27:18 q?
15:27:33 -John_Foliot
15:28:02 +John_Foliot
15:28:11 RS: My impression in Lyon was that the hit-testing proposal would be dropped. path has been implemented in blink and webkit, but can't be tied to fallback content ergo doesn't help accessibility, unless we can change it in the 5.1 timeline.
15:28:46 … Next thing is what canvas has for accessibility. The Accessibility API document is not normative - we need to know that it is getting mapped properly, but what do we do - test to a non-normative spec??
15:29:08 … don't know if system and focus rings are at risk - we are trying to see if we can get that done.
15:29:36 PC: Do you think technical changes to the normative content are required to ensure accessibility?
15:30:02 RS: Not as simple as that. For hit testing, that will change things. It won't make it fast enough for 5.0 as I understand so we have accepted it as out of scope.
15:30:30 … For the rest, as long as the focus rings get *implemented* we should be able to write tests without changing the normative portions.
15:31:22 … For fallback content, we currently have a mapping from fallback content to what is on the canvas. To test that we have to write test cases to show it is mapped to the accessibility API on at least two implementations, but the spec that defines what that mapping should be is a separatte non-normative spec.
15:31:45 … And we need to test that keyboard navigation works. We can do that, but there isn't a normative spec to test it against.
15:31:58 q?
15:32:09 ack plh
15:32:11 … Would like to hear your advice on how to deal with the fact that the spec we rely on is not normative…
15:32:32 -John_Foliot
15:32:46 q+
15:32:50 plh: Didn't mean to imply that things have to be dropped. My concern was that we have a widely implemented spec, how long should the CR phase be - can we avoid waiting for HTML5?
15:33:20 … By the way we are still lacking tests regarding focus.
15:33:21 q?
15:33:49 … for keyboard navigation, it is not clear that it applies to canvas2d. It applies to the canvas element of the HTML spec. The fallback is in HTML not in the Canvas2D spec.
15:33:59 +John_Foliot
15:34:21 RS: OK. I'm looking at the whole set, and I agree with you that HTML is where we need to be looking.
15:34:53 JS: Would like to go back to focus. Criteria for CR require implementations in a released product?
15:35:18 ??: Requirement is that the build be publicly available, but not required to be in release.
15:35:30 s/??/Ted/
15:35:39 ack janina
15:36:27 See exit criteria: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html
15:36:49 JS: So a product appearing today needs to be available for a month?
15:37:23 RS: From canvas 2d we just need to test focus rings. The other stuff is HTML5 spec. And Hit testing we presume it will get bounced to a 5.1
15:37:52 JS: How long might it take to get implementation?
15:38:12 RS: Waiting to find out from browser developers. Hope it got into IE 11...
15:38:26 JS: Depends when you can get IE publicly
15:38:45 PC: You can get the preview publicly already with Win8.1
15:38:50 q+
15:38:55 JS: SO hope for it, expect Chrome to implement...
15:39:05 … hope for Mozilla too...
15:39:12 RS: Yeah, but we'll see.
15:39:20 … I've been busy on other stuff.
15:39:27 See http://dev.w3.org/html5/misc/canvas-implementation.html
15:39:50 JS: We consider this a relatively simple feature to implement, right?
15:40:01 RS: I don't think it is a very big deal to implement, no.
15:40:59 … when the change went in to provide hit testing it included path support. Believe path is implemented in the browsers. We should look at what things are in and what aren't before we figure out which bits of the spec are ready to go forward.
15:41:10 Note that FocusRing and Hit Regions sections are marked: "At risk - no implementations or tests"
15:41:19 JS: Needed for the 2d spec?
15:41:32 q?
15:41:34 RS: Yeah, you might have some bits ready now...
15:41:52 -John_Foliot
15:42:28 PLH: Path objects and hit regions are at risk. According to TR version of document, focus objects are not at risk.
15:42:50 PC: So we have an issue because the implentation report suggests they are.
15:43:05 q?
15:43:21 PLH: cf At risk (because there aren't implementations yet) and At Risk as used in the process...
15:43:31 RS: Was focus ring identified as at risk?
15:44:10 PC: According to PLH it is not At Risk in the process sense. But there are not implementations yet, so it is know to pose a problem for clearing CR.
15:44:18 +John_Foliot
15:44:27 … so it seems to be the feature where it is most important to get implenetations and tests.
15:44:40 s/implenetations/implementations/
15:45:11 PC: If someone can demonstrate that we have implenentations of path, the HTML group could declare that we have interoperability there.
15:45:46 EOC: Blink and Webkit should currently count as one implementation - the code there is from before the codebase has any divergence.
15:45:51 q-
15:46:01 ack plh
15:46:08 PLH: Any plan in webkit to implement focus ring, or any reason it couldn't be done?
15:46:15 EOC: Don't know of either...
15:46:20 Ted's point about Webkit vs Blink is based on the criteria text: Each implementation must be developed by a different party and cannot share, reuse, or derive from code used by another qualifying implementation
15:46:26 q?
15:46:59 PC: If HTML chairs asked for a 30-day review of the canvas implementation status, would that be OK for the task force?
15:47:20 RS: Does this mean "are you going to implement it?"
15:47:21 q+ to ask a question to Paul
15:47:40 q+
15:47:58 PC: Not relevant. The question is whether the document reflects the existing status of canvas implementation - what happens a week later will obviously not be there, but can be anticipated.
15:48:19 PLH: What is the purpose of the document. Presentation for the director, or something else?
15:48:37 PC: There are sections in the document that are marked "considered interoperable".
15:49:28 … those sections will not be further tested, they are agreed under the passive exit criteria for plan 2014
15:50:08 q-
15:50:11 PLH: Some of those greens are based on judgement, some are based on test. I would be concerned that the director may want to know more about how things got to "green" than just "the working group agrees that it is done".
15:50:20 q?
15:50:24 PC: That would not match the expectation agreed as part of Plan2014.
15:51:07 q-
15:51:56 JS: Path is at risk in the document, so if a CfC goes out it may reflect the status as of now, not what might happen. If path is going to be implemented, should we find that out before we sign off on that consensus?
15:52:07 RS: Is path implemented in webkit?
15:52:10 EOC: Yep.
15:52:15 RS: Same code as blink?
15:52:18 EOC: yep.
15:53:02 JB: Makes sense to get the report corrected if there is in fact interoperability of path.
15:53:12 JS: Would the group hold off on the CfC while we find out?
15:53:31 PC: No, the point of the CfC is precisely to discover this kind of thing and change the document accordingly.
15:54:02 JS: Suppose a month is sufficient time to discover if there are errors.
15:54:13 zakim, close item 3
15:54:13 agendum 3, Canvas 2d CR Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0000.html, closed
15:54:15 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:54:15 4. Updated Figure Text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jul/0008.html [from janina]
15:54:18 zakim, take up item 6
15:54:18 agendum 6. "HTML5 testing" taken up [from janina]
15:54:43 JS: TF response to testing for HTML5 in general, which Mark has been coordinating.
15:54:56 MS: Haven't got more since our walk-through, haven't seen edits on the wiki page
15:54:57