See also: IRC log
<paulc> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 19 September 2013
<scribe> Meeting: HTML A11y TF telecon
<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson
scribenick LJWatson
CMN: LCis closed.
<chaals> comments received and some proposed responses
CMN: We have comments. The above
link tracks bugs and responses.
... My expectation is we can discuss on this call. Each will
need approval by the WG, so today is a good time to provide
comments.
... Expect to work on this today. Proposals should be wrapped
up for CFC by tomorrow night.
... Would like CFC to be underway before next week's TF
meeting.
JS: Looking to dispose of these by first week in October?
CMN: Yes, as soon as we
reasonably can.
... We'll then need to send responses back to commenters. We
could end up in a cycle if commenters are still nowt satisfied,
but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.
MS: No further progress on testing.
CMN: If anyone is willing to stay on IRC after the meeting to look at testing that would be helpful.
JS: RC2119 requirements are satisfied?
CMN: We've only run tests on two implementations, so we don't have two distinct implementations yet. We need more test results.
AR: I've committed to NVDA testing.
CMN: Help after this call to hammer through some testing would be good.
<MarkS> links to tests
<aardrian> I'll hang out after call on IRC. I have maybe a half hour.
JB: Question about a bug from last March and plan 2014.
<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21341
<SteveF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Sep/0044.html &
<SteveF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Sep/0045.html
JB: The bug caused somedebtate
about obsoleting longdesc. The bug related to the first PWD.
Mark clarified this on list today, Robin has replied.
... The bug doesn't yet include a link to Mark's clarification.
Mark can you take care of that/?
PC: Was mystified by your reference to emails from Mark and Robin. They haven't arrived to my inbox yet.
JB: Went to the public admin list.
RS: Focus rings for custom and
system have been implemented by Chrome canary for Mac and
Windows.
... Also have implementations where you can pass a path to
them.
... No other browsers have support.
<paulc> s/rick/rik/
RS: We don't have an implementation of those functions with the path object in Chrome. No browser has implemented the full path object spec.
RC: Agreed.
<cabanier> from Google: "I'm not as sure about drawCustomFocusRing. The spec says "If the user has
<cabanier> requested the use of particular focus rings", but I'm not aware of any
<cabanier> platform API we could use to query that. To the best of my knowledge,
<cabanier> assistive technology that draws its own focus rings, like ZoomText,
<cabanier> normally draws an additional focus ring with extra padding, rather than
<cabanier> replacing the system one."
RS: I sent a note to Frank Olivier at MS, and it has not been implemented in the beta of IE11.
<cabanier> from google: So, what we implemented in Chrome for drawCustomFocusRing is basically just
<cabanier> a function that notifies assistive technology of the bounding rect of the
<cabanier> focused region within the canvas
<paulc> I presume that the Google implementation is in Blink code base and that Opera (based on Blink) would pick up the same implementation but that would not be a 2nd independent implementation.
RS: We have a defect open, a
design spec written, and we're trying to get it
prioritised.
... WillOpera pick up the focus ring implementations if they're
available in Canary?
CMN: If they're Chrome specific, Opera won't get them, if they're Chromium they will.
RS: Also sent a note to James Craig at Apple, for implementation in Webkit.
PC: Canwe characterise this implementation in terms of the spec?
RS: They're in a bit of a blob in the spec.
PC: If you're talking about features at risk, the relevant spec sections need to be identified.
RS: We're talking about two APIs.
JS: Paul is referring to passing CR on the spec.
RS: Haven't identified all sections that relate to path. But the APIs that relate to path are at risk.
MC: No browser has this on by default. We have an experimental implementation at best.
JS: That's not relevant, it just needs to be agreed as implementable.
PC: Non shipping versions must have the feature for at least one month.
<paulc> Permissive exit criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0294.html
<SteveF> canvas 2d context editors draft http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/
MC: So we have one extra API. It may be we don't have to drop it.
RS: I don't think it needs to be
dropped.
... It was just a couple of weeks work on Canary.
<paulc> Canvas interoperability document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/misc/canvas-implementation.html
PC: This is the interoperability
document. It has path object in section 7 as not implemented,
and focus rings in sections 12 d, e, and f.
... Which of these is there an implementation of?
RS: d and e of section 12. There are other aspects of the spec that relate to path objects not included here though.
PC: Why wasn't that pointed out?
RS: Ddn't realise I had to do that.
JS: So path is not at risk?
RS: Path objects are at risk.
PC: The CR says Path
objects.
... So all variants that use Path objects are at risk too?
RS: Yes.
PC: Hit regions (section 14) are also at risk?
RS: Yes, thought it had been agreed to move it out to the next version of canvas.
PC: Don't believe there is official agreement on that.
RS: At the F2F in Lyon I Met with Philipe and Rick, and we discussed moving it to the next version of Canvas. They wanted to consider using something other than Path.
RC: We have to give that more time.
MC: We did discuss this though.
RS: We won't get any implementations. December 2014?
PC: I wouldn't assume a date.
Leave that to the chairs.
... Pink indicates no implementation.
<paulc> 12. Drawing paths to the canvasInteroperable
<paulc> d. drawSystemFocusRing() e. drawCustomFocusRing()
RS: We do have implementations for section 12 D and E.
MC: 12 E is implemented, but it
isn't a correct implementation.
... It uses a shortcut to draw the focus ring.
<paulc> I will note as well that we don't have tests for these features.
PC: Red indicates no implementations and no tests.
RS: I sent tests to Mark.
MS: I'll take care of that.
PC: We have no evidence about the status of Path objects?
MC: They're not implemented.
PC: Rich, you're suggesting hit region being removed from the spec, providing it returned (possibly in a change format) in a later version?
RS: Yes.
PC: Would you be ok to doing the same with Path objects?
RS: Yes.
<MarkS> LW: no new bugs that require task force to follow. focusing on longdesc testing.
SF: API mapping. We've been looking at the scope of the document.
PC: The API mapping document. It's been published as a heartbeat?
SF: Yes.
PC: Thought the TF wanted a hand in publishing that document?
JB: Yes.
PC: Did someone open a bug on that doc?
JB: It was a misfire. I don't know whether there is a bug on each one.
PC: We're talking about two
documents. ARIA in HTML is in the hands of the WG and on
today's agenda.
... For the API mapping doc I have a recollection that the TF
wanted to be part of the publication process.
JB: It's listed as a TF document, so should be jointly managed. This wasn't properly referenced before.
MS: We spoke about discussing longdesc at TPAC.
CMN: May be able to attend the Test the Web Forward event.
JB: We wanted to clear all
longdesc LC comments before we bring to the WG.
... Discussion today would be premature.
PC: Are you presuming you can get integrated before it goes into TR?
JB: No. We're going through the process that's described though.
JS: We hope to have our testing ready so CR entrance and exit is swift.
PC: CR is optional.
CMN: We don't have any anticipation of integrating until we're ready to leave CR. That's the minimun bar. Question is what happens then?
PC: Ok. Decide whether to go to PR, or fold into the spec.
xakim, take up item 8
JS: Will update Using ARIA in HTML.
DM: The version in Github?
SF: No, we produced a heartbeat
draft for CFC.
... Process is that the editors draft will become the next
version for TR.
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/now/ Succeeded: s/public list/public admin list/ FAILED: s/rick/rik/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: LJWatson Found Scribe: Léonie Watson WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AR CMN Cynthia_Shelly DM David_ David_MacDonald IPcaller JB JS Judy LJWatson LW MC MS MarkS Markku Microsoft P39 PC RC RS Rich_Schwerdtfeger SF SteveF aaaa aardrian cabanier chaals https inserted janina mhakkinen paulc richardschwerdtfeger trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 19 Sep 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/19-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]