HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

20 Feb 2014

See also: IRC log


janina, Mark_Sadecki, [IPcaller], paulc, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, JF, Judy, [Microsoft], Suzanne_Taylor, Cynthia_Shelly, JatinderMann
Léonie Watson


<trackbot> Date: 20 February 2014

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List

<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson

HTML & Web Apps F2F--Shall TF meet? http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda

JS: Question is whether the TF wishes to meet with either HTML or Web Apps WGs at the F2F in April.
... Timing doesn't work out for the Canvas sub-team.
... Week of April 7th.

JF: Could put me as tentative.

JM: I could possibly represent the Canvas sub-team?

MS: I should attend.

<MarkS> ACTION: MarkS to query the list for interest/availability for HTML F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Query the list for interest/availability for html f2f [on Mark Sadecki - due 2014-02-27].

JB: Is there any consideration of alternative/future dates?

PC: These dates were announced two months ago.

Longdesc Update

<MarkS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0042.html

MS: We've found some common ground with Matthew Turvey.
... Good news. Chaals and I continue to work through our to do list.

PC: Timetable?

MS: Hopefully early March for a publication transition. Will have a definitive date next week.

Canvas 2D Status & Next Steps

<MarkS> ACTION: MarkS to have a time estimate for longdesc transition by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Have a time estimate for longdesc transition by next week [on Mark Sadecki - due 2014-02-27].

<MarkS> Summary of options for moving Canvas fwd

JM: We've eliminated most bugs with the API.

JS: IE isn't an implementation?

JM: Not yet/in the near future.
... Firefox has implementation, but with issues.

JS: Also Google/Webkit?

JM: Yes.

RS: We couldn't get hit regions into v1, so this is a reduced version.

JM: We have implementations of draw focus if needed.
... Option 1 - Move it to Level 2. Pro is Level 1 isn't delayed.

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0052.html

JS: Options available in email [URI above]

MS: No implementations for option 3 currently.

JM: Option 4 could take anywhere from three to six months.

<Zakim> MarkS, you wanted to say that he doesn't like the idea of an "accessibility point release" aka 1.1 Canvas with A11y Features

MS: Not a fan of options 1 or 2, 3 is pretty messy, so 4 seems like a possibility.
... Think three to six months is a safe estimate for option 4.

JM: Think our real options are 2 or 4.
... One mild concern about 4 is that we'd have a forked version for a while.
... Question is whether it's part of the Level 1 spec, or an extension spec, but that's just logistics.

RS: We have to consider the 508 refresh. That requires that objects are exposed, so we can't afford to release a version of the spec that doesn't meet that requirement.

PC: Speaking personally, the time estimate is suspect. Your original timetable was January.

JS: We were done in November.

PC: We need to choose an option that gets Canvas out more quickly than three to six months.

<MarkS> The subgroup did not start meeting until January...

PC: We need to take these options back to the HTML WG.
... Don't understand concerns about option 2/extension spec?

JB: It won't be acceptable to have an open web platform that doesn't have an accessible primary graphic option.
... I'm interested in the possible factors that could shorten the timeframe?
... I'm encouraged by the recent activity in the Canvas team.

RS: The WHATWG effort is getting in the way of things. Regarding implementations, the Mozilla team had a prototype up and running within a week. Will ask the chairs need to deal with the WHATWG situation.

PC: I understand those concerns. It's not clear to me how we solve a problem like that.
... Will point out this is why I'm skeptical of the option 4 timeline.

JB: I understand Ian has expressed an opinion that the discussion should take place within WHATWG space. We're expecting the process to continue within the multi-stakeholder HTML A11y TF; the hit-testing approach has a prior history of discussion and use in other fora in any case; and it appears that the solutions being pursued are relatively close in any case, and bugs can be filed to address the differences..

RS: Ian has de-railed numerous accessibility efforts in Canvas. If him causing trouble causes us not to get things don for the 508 refreshe, we have a problem

JM: We have stakeholder involvement, but browser vendors may also be swayed by the WHATWG.
... We could include a promisory note in v1 to say accessibility is coming.

JB: That's not the definition of an open web platform.

MS: What is our obligation, if any, to work with the WHATWG?
... Suggest we forge ahead with it, then WHATWG can pull from our spec if they wish.

The following section has been corrected as the information presented during the meeting was found to be inaccurate, and may have impacted the discussion that followed. The request to correct is available in the list archive.

PC: The HTML Working Group will consider proposals for future specifications from Community Groups, encourage open participation from Community Group members, and keep coordination with relevant Community Groups, all within the bounds of the W3C patent policy and available resources.

<paulc> See http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html Section 3.2

End edited section

JB: When questions come up, they need to be dealt with in W3C space, and there's already a history of HT experience and discussion..

JM: Can either delay 1 by 6 months, and 1.1 in possibly 6/8 months after.

RS: We shouldn't be working on a WHATWG spec, especially if it has no route into a W3C spec. I asked Ian that but received no response.

JB: Would express extremely strong concerns if we didn't have an open web platform with accessibility, and a promisary note doesn't deliver an accessibility-compliant specification to work with..
... I'd be interested in ways we can compress the timeline and achieve this though.
... For a major W3C spec not to include accessibility would be strategically worrying.

CS: Whether it's in 1 or 1.1, it'll end up in the browsers at the same time.
... So the question is what version of the spec, not when it'll actually be available in browsers.

JB: The goal to ensure an accessible web is more important.

JS: Next steps?
... Test TF consensus?

JB: We need additional information on timing.
... Timing is critical.

RS: I haven't seen a case for why we can't get this stuff into 1.0.

JS: We need to collect data on timelines, and return to this topic next week.

<paulc> leaving to Chair WG meeting

<janina> HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference; Thursday 27 February at 16:00Z for 60 minutes; Zakim 2119#

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: MarkS to have a time estimate for longdesc transition by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: MarkS to query the list for interest/availability for HTML F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-02-21 22:32:34 $