15:34:19 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:34:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/21-html-a11y-irc
15:34:21 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:34:21 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:34:23 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:34:24 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:34:24 Date: 21 November 2013
15:34:24 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 34 minutes ago
15:34:33 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:34:37 agenda?
15:34:42 Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
15:34:42 Chair: Janina_Sajka
15:34:42 agenda+ Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:34:45 agenda+ REMINDER: Everyone is asked to rejoin the HTML-WG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Oct/0001.html
15:34:48 agenda+ Longdesc Status & Next Steps
15:34:51 agenda+ Canvas 2D CfC http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0006.html
15:34:54 agenda+ ARIA Related Bugs [See Below]
15:34:56 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; AAPI Mapping; Media;
15:34:59 agenda+ Bug Triage: Review of Resolved Bugs tracked by TF [see below]
15:35:01 agenda+ HTML 5.1 Objectives http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/51wishlist
15:35:04 agenda+ Other Business
15:35:06 agenda+ Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:35:08 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:35:09 agenda+ be done
15:35:38 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:36:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:37:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:38:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:39:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:39:58 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
15:40:05 +??P3
15:40:11 zakim, ??P3 is me
15:40:11 +janina; got it
15:40:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:40:46 zakim, janina has Janina_Sajka
15:40:46 +Janina_Sajka; got it
15:41:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:42:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:43:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:44:17 janina_ has joined #html-a11y
15:44:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:45:12 zakim, who's here?
15:45:12 On the phone I see janina
15:45:13 janina has Janina_Sajka
15:45:13 On IRC I see wuwei, janina_, Zakim, RRSAgent, davidb, Joshue, MarkS, janina, trackbot, hober
15:45:28 agenda?
15:45:40 zakim, take up item 1
15:45:40 agendum 1. "Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List" taken up [from janina]
15:54:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:55:37 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
15:55:55 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:56:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:57:08 +Mark_Sadecki
15:57:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:58:56 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
15:59:37 +David_MacDonald
15:59:56 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:00:30 JatinderMann has joined #html-a11y
16:00:56 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:01:02 +hober
16:01:51 +[Microsoft]
16:01:56 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:02:56 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:03:01 scribe: MarkS
16:03:18 zakim, [Microsoft] is Jatinder
16:03:18 +Jatinder; got it
16:03:30 zakim, next item
16:03:30 agendum 2. "REMINDER: Everyone is asked to rejoin the HTML-WG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Oct/0001.html" taken up [from janina]
16:04:11 JS: everyone needs to agree to the new charter and deliverables.
16:05:01 +John_Foliot
16:05:20 MS: We will be following up to update TF members in the coming weeks.
16:06:15 Judy has joined #html-a11y
16:06:24 zakim, next item
16:06:24 agendum 3. "Longdesc Status & Next Steps" taken up [from janina]
16:06:44 David_ has joined #html-a11y
16:06:45 +Judy
16:08:51 JS: Not a lot to report due to other items of focus at TPAC. Expect chaals to send feedback on comments. Will begin preparing for exiting LC. Will be measuring consensus from TF regarding publication path for longdesc. Most likely early in December. By mid-december we should have consensus from group and ducks in a row for moving into CR.
16:09:14 ...comment responses and testing/implementation report
16:09:45 ...my goal to have this completed by the CSUN conference mid-March.
16:09:52 zakim, next item
16:09:52 agendum 4. "Canvas 2D CfC http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0006.html" taken up [from janina]
16:11:47 JS: had a CfC with two proposals for Canvas RE at risk features and moving them to next revision
16:12:05 ...there was concern from MS (from cynthia)
16:12:16 ...wanted to continue that discussion here.
16:12:26 ...consensus has not been reached
16:12:44 q+
16:12:48 ...have not declared a result on that just yet
16:13:08 http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-html-wg-minutes.html#item12
16:13:31 JM: talked about this at HTML WG F2F. Also talked to Rik from Adobe and Dominic and folks from Apple
16:13:48 ...like the direction this is going, tieing shadow dom to focus, etc.
16:13:57 ...had some concerns about how to implement
16:14:04 ...generating momentum
16:14:15 q?
16:14:16 ...raising true concerns that we want resolved.
16:14:25 ...think we shouldn't rush them through with Canvas Level1
16:14:44 q+
16:14:45 ...like Rik said if we design this right, we may not even need hit regions
16:14:47 ...Rik has some good question
16:14:55 ...would like to see these resolved in the Level2 spec
16:15:11 ...end user will enjoy solid implementations that they can actually use
16:15:26 ack ri
16:15:27 ...do not want to rush it out with Level1 spec since other parts of canvas have been stable for a long time
16:15:48 RS: I agree that CustomFocusRing could have better specificity.
16:16:02 ...high contrast media queries, can help the author in drawing rings
16:16:06 q+
16:16:14 ...the issues we are having are around hit testing, which has been put off to Level2
16:16:22 JF has joined #html-a11y
16:16:29 ...hixie did not want to document how this would work in the browser
16:16:43 ...the current focus ring is not going to be an issue for Level1
16:17:09 ...MS wrote the initial spec with us but have since been unresponsive and coming in now and saying they are not ready to implement this.
16:17:15 ...my company needs this now.
16:17:44 ...none of the questions being raised are not covered in the spec. hixie didn't want it.
16:17:57 ...i need to have MS at the table
16:18:35 ack ju
16:18:37 ...not confident that this is going to change in Level2
16:18:43 ack Judy
16:18:51 ack JatinderMann
16:19:10 plh has joined #html-a11y
16:19:15 +Plh
16:19:23 JM: I actually worked on the initial canvas implementation. agree that we are a little late to this. I'm actively interested in implementing these features
16:19:48 ...we are not concerned about level1 v level2, we will ship when its ready.
16:19:55 ...i think Rik should be involved in this since he raised concerns as well.
16:20:05 ack jt
16:20:12 ...we're allowing a dev to override user settings right now
16:20:28 ...i think the scrolling issue is a big one and should be worked out
16:21:00 ...you should not be concerned that we are not ready to implement. we just want to work out the details and get it right. don't care whether its level1 or level2, we just want to get it right.
16:21:04 q+
16:21:10 q+ janina
16:21:51 q+
16:22:06 JB: you mentioned that hit testing might not be needed. that is not what I have been hearing, which is that some form of hit testing will be needed for this. perhaps there is information missing here.
16:22:31 q+
16:23:03 ...also sounds as though you thought it wouldn't matter that much (which level). If a spec comes out of W3C that is not accessible, it will matter greatly to many users.
16:23:23 ...welcome your involvement in this, but have those two concerns.
16:23:28 ach richardschwerdtfeger
16:23:33 ach richardschwerdtfeger
16:23:37 ack rich
16:23:49 JM: I think Rik raised the hit testing concern
16:24:00 ...i think he would be best to comment on it.
16:24:23 ...we have two early implementations, one from Rik and one from Dominic and they both raised the same concerns.
16:24:45 ...I don't think its MS as a 3rd party observer, we are getting feedback from implementers.
16:25:29 ...RE: whether L1 or L2. Not sure I understand this so much, cynthia might. From my perspective, the goal is a solid implementation for users and a clear api for developers.
16:25:36 ...feel like we need a little more work to clean that up
16:25:48 ...not sure why the Level matters
16:26:02 ack r
16:26:14 ...developers look for interoperable implementations so they know they can use a technology
16:26:21 q+
16:26:49 RS: I was doing the testing with Rik and Dominc. I understand the issue re: hit testing and custom focus ring and can deal with that in Level2, same goes for scrolling.
16:27:00 ...we haven't talked about this yet
16:27:19 ...we need something in the spec that people can start implementing today
16:27:37 ...pushing it off to L2 leaves low vision user with no options for using canvas
16:27:57 ...the API itself is not going to change for drawing a systemFocusRing. its pretty vanilla.
16:28:22 ...discussions with Rik re: how it gets developed is that its not clearly defined
16:29:00 JS: is it good enough to provide meaningful a11y for users who need it now.
16:29:02 ack janina
16:29:35 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:29:35 ...we need this now for mag users. imperfection for AT users is nothing new, they will appreciate any sort of support
16:30:43 ...looking at timeframe, we have discussed this with HTML WG, one of chairs said we have until the end of Q1 2014 to have implementations and think that is enough time to implement a solid version of this.
16:30:48 ack jatin
16:30:54 ack hober
16:30:57 ack jan
16:31:18 ack t
16:31:48 TO: I think janina summarized it well, the disagreement is around whether the current spec meets a min bar.
16:32:29 hober, you're breaking up
16:32:45 ...i think what became clear at F2F was that there are two engineers that have implemented, neither of whom thinks its ready and that every browser implementer in the room said they would like to develop this in L2
16:33:28 ...something else we talked about in Shenzhen was that L2 doesn't mean 5 years from now. NO reason we can't have a quick update to canvas that adds this feature, very soon after L1 spec
16:33:41 q+
16:33:45 ...we need to get it right
16:33:51 ...which may mean not shipping in L1
16:33:58 ...don't want to ship a mistake
16:34:26 ack ju
16:34:30 JM: to rich's point, if we change the spec between versions, there could be compatibility issues moving forward.
16:35:04 JB: for the specific aspects of the min bar of interop for getting this into L1, do we have specific statements to what the question are?
16:35:24 ...have we done an assessment to see what resources are needed to get this implemented?
16:35:56 ...if we don't focus on getting those addressed in L1, there is not a great prognosis for getting it done in L2
16:36:16 ...would like to see continued focus on this for L1
16:36:50 ...may not be typical scenario for a developer, but the means to have access is better than no access at all.
16:37:28 ...there are already applications that are waiting for this now, so its not all devs that will wait for total interop
16:37:29 q+
16:37:35 q?
16:37:36 ack rich
16:37:41 ack ri
16:37:57 RS: I'm hearing from the two co's who have not been involved and are now asking to push it out.
16:37:57 q+
16:38:24 ...we agreed that path could be pushed off so that we can focus on what low vision users needed to use canvas
16:38:45 ...Pearson is trying to get rid of flash to move to canvas and are waiting for this functionality
16:38:58 q-
16:39:07 ...there is a pattern of continued delay when moving parts to next version
16:39:15 ...people need to have access today
16:39:38 ack t
16:39:44 ack ho
16:39:50 ...shouldn't be expanding the issue to include customFocusRing
16:40:23 TO: interop is something that happens after implementation. the only two engineers who have implemented are not comfortable shipping there implementations.
16:40:29 q+
16:40:32 q+
16:41:19 ...RE: apps waiting for this, we would do a disservice to them if we put out an imperfect product
16:41:46 ...several issues raised on several threads
16:42:00 RS: has apple tried to implement this in webkit?
16:42:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0019.html
16:42:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0021.html
16:42:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0004.html
16:42:45 TO: riks code has been rejected by webkit
16:43:09 q+
16:43:12 JB: this has been cycling for some time. if there is not progress, we need to figure out why otherwise same thing will happen for L2
16:43:51 TO: I think we agreed at the F2F that this needed to move to L2
16:45:25 JM: Rik said it, we are working on this together and getting lots of feedback, there is momentum and we should use it to our advantage. I think we should entertain the idea of a 1.1 concept.
16:45:53 webkit-dev thread: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-October/thread.html#25670
16:45:57 ...some of the concerns are being worked out. RE: even the naming of the methods are confusing.
16:46:16 q+
16:46:22 ...doesn't need to be a ring, its any path that can be drawn. anything that is confusing to developers, will hurt adoption.
16:46:31 ...some of our concerns are quite basic.
16:46:43 q+
16:46:43 RS: MS helped define that API
16:46:54 lwatson has joined #html-a11y
16:47:19 q+ to inquire about timing of finding solutions, if the type of specifics are simply on the level of naming
16:47:28 JM: it seems as though there was some native windows API that was using that convention, but we should question that moving forward instead of continue an illogical naming convention
16:47:37 +[IPcaller]
16:47:58 q?
16:48:05 ...some of the feedback we received was that a lot of this API is confusing and unclear. A web developer is even more likely to be confused.
16:48:11 JB: lets talk timeline
16:48:30 ...think this could be worked out in some conference call
16:48:42 wuwei has joined #html-a11y
16:49:03 ...timing wise, if we are looking at issues as simple as naming, we could work these out in the number of months remainging
16:49:06 q?
16:49:11 ack jan
16:49:30 JS: I have not heard anything that indicates we cannot clear all of this up by L1
16:49:48 ...I would like to keep this moving.
16:49:55 zakim, [IP is leonie
16:49:55 +leonie; got it
16:50:40 q+ to make a suggestion on a way to focus the solution-finding
16:50:41 q+
16:50:41 q?
16:50:50 ack ju
16:50:50 Judy, you wanted to inquire about timing of finding solutions, if the type of specifics are simply on the level of naming and to make a suggestion on a way to focus the
16:50:50 ack judy
16:50:53 ... solution-finding
16:51:24 JB: its very helpful to hear at least one of the specifics. Ted, thanks for offering to aggregate discussion to date.
16:51:37 ...lets look at issues and start working through them.
16:52:00 ...if there are thornier implementation issues, lets lay them out clearly
16:52:08 q+
16:52:21 ...I want to emphasize that I like the new energy around this
16:53:06 ...see if we can really get these issues nailed down and worked out. doesn't sound like we need a year to do this.
16:53:28 ack plh
16:54:06 PLH: we talked about issues, usually we have open issues or bugs somewhere. Can we formally open bugs in bugzilla?
16:54:19 JS: we had only one objection via email.
16:54:46 JB: seems like the people who discovered the issues should report them
16:55:05 PLH: jatinder, would you like to work with me to create this issues?
16:55:06 q?
16:55:07 JM: yes
16:55:24 -John_Foliot
16:55:43 q?
16:55:48 JS: the TF list is a good place to have this discussion
16:55:50 ack Jat
16:56:15 JM: I think it makes sense to have the two implementers on the call and if they believe they are willing to ship those implementations.
16:56:15