14:52:47 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:52:47 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/02-html-a11y-irc
14:52:49 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:52:49 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:52:51 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:52:51 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 52 minutes ago
14:52:52 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:52:52 Date: 02 October 2014
14:53:00 agenda?
14:53:05 chair: Charles
14:53:05 agenda+ Longdesc status
14:53:05 agenda+ Canvas 2D -- Missing requirement in the CR spec
14:53:05 agenda+ TPAC meeting
14:53:05 agenda+ Call for review of timed text
14:53:07 agenda+ HTML5.1 and beyond
14:53:10 agenda+ Any Other Business
14:53:34 rubys has joined #html-a11y
14:53:37 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
14:53:41 zakim, clear agenda
14:53:41 agenda cleared
14:53:45 +??P22
14:54:16 chair: Charles
14:54:16 agenda+ Longdesc status
14:54:16 agenda+ Alt Text Note Status
14:54:16 agenda+ Canvas 2D -- Missing requirement in the CR spec
14:54:16 agenda+ TPAC meeting
14:54:18 agenda+ Call for review of timed text
14:54:21 agenda+ HTML5.1 and beyond
14:54:23 agenda+ Any Other Business
14:54:45 zakim, who's on the phone?
14:54:45 On the phone I see ??P22
14:54:52 zakim, ??P22 is me
14:54:52 +janina; got it
14:57:09 zakim, agenda?
14:57:11 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
14:57:11 1. Longdesc status [from janina]
14:57:11 2. Alt Text Note Status [from janina]
14:57:11 3. Canvas 2D -- Missing requirement in the CR spec [from janina]
14:57:11 4. TPAC meeting [from janina]
14:57:11 5. Call for review of timed text [from janina]
14:57:12 6. HTML5.1 and beyond [from janina]
14:57:12 7. Any Other Business [from janina]
14:57:23 Charles, I loaded your agenda, taking the liberty to add a few items
14:57:36 yep, all looks good to me.
14:57:42 Cool
14:57:43 ShaneM has joined #html-a11y
14:59:08 +ShaneM
14:59:49 No comprendo
15:00:12 +[IPcaller]
15:00:27 s/No comprendo//
15:00:36 s/Cool//
15:00:37 +Joanmarie_Diggs
15:00:41 +Judy
15:00:42 plh has joined #html-a11y
15:00:55 zakim, [ip is me
15:00:56 +chaals; got it
15:00:59 +Sam
15:01:01 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:01:06 +Plh
15:01:23 ScribeNick: ShaneM
15:01:24 s/yep, all looks good to me.//
15:01:40 s/Charles, I loaded your agenda, taking the liberty to add a few items//
15:01:48 zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:48 On the phone I see janina, ShaneM, chaals, Joanmarie_Diggs, Judy, Sam, Plh
15:02:23 zakim, agenda
15:02:23 I don't understand 'agenda', chaals
15:02:31 zakim, agenda?
15:02:31 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:32 1. Longdesc status [from janina]
15:02:32 2. Alt Text Note Status [from janina]
15:02:32 3. Canvas 2D -- Missing requirement in the CR spec [from janina]
15:02:32 4. TPAC meeting [from janina]
15:02:32 5. Call for review of timed text [from janina]
15:02:33 6. HTML5.1 and beyond [from janina]
15:02:33 7. Any Other Business [from janina]
15:03:05 paulc has joined #html-a11y
15:03:09 +Liam
15:03:13 zakim, what is the code?
15:03:13 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
15:03:29 +[Microsoft]
15:03:39 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
15:03:39 +paulc; got it
15:04:59 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
15:05:05 zakim, take up item 1
15:05:05 agendum 1. "Longdesc status" taken up [from janina]
15:05:13 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:05:20 We don't have a directors decision yet. Any day now.
15:05:29 zakim, take up item 2
15:05:29 agendum 2. "Alt Text Note Status" taken up [from janina]
15:05:39 +MarkS
15:05:51 +JF
15:05:55 We are expecting bugs to be filed on it - including bugs that will be related to the longdesc decision.
15:06:05 ... waiting on cleaning the spec up until after that decision.
15:06:32 So, if you think you have a bug, file it now.
15:06:33 Charles does a good job of "channeling" Paul.
15:06:37 zakim, take up item 3
15:06:37 agendum 3. "Canvas 2D -- Missing requirement in the CR spec" taken up [from janina]
15:07:00 My understanding is that Rik and Rich are on the same page: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014JulSep/0047.html
15:07:10 janina: Rich was writing tests, and uncovered this issue.
15:07:35 ... There is no requirement in the published spec to expose 'hit regions' to the A11Y APIs.
15:07:46 JF has joined #html-a11y
15:08:09 ... Not clear how we got into this situation, but it was expected to have been in the spec all along. It is why A11Y pushed for hit regions in the spec.
15:08:17 ... It is not thought to be controversial at all.
15:08:20 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:08:21 q+ to comment that Janina's sentiment doesn't come through in Rich's email
15:08:51 +David_MacDonald
15:08:51 ... There are some implementations already. If the requirement had been in the spec, we could quickly add the tests and it would quickly pass.
15:09:09 ... we would really like to see this requirement in this spec. The next spec is not soon enough.
15:09:19 q+
15:09:37 RS: Hit Region was added to the release for A11Y. Mark was already doing tests.
15:09:54 David has joined #html-a11y
15:10:33 MS: The mistake could have happened during edits on hit regions - possibly during transitions. We should probably do some research to figure out how the requirement disappeared.
15:10:56 ... I have been doing testing, and written apps that use these new features. Most of it focuses upon fallback content.
15:11:10 ... I have not done testing to see if a defined hit region gets its location updated via the A11Y API.
15:11:15 q+
15:11:22 ... I am not sure it would have relevance unless the item received focus.
15:11:43 ack rub
15:11:44 rubys, you wanted to comment that Janina's sentiment doesn't come through in Rich's email
15:11:59 chaals: Note that we do not need to get into a technical discussion. We just need to decide what to do.
15:12:08 The next teleconference is next Friday: https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_6495
15:12:26 q+
15:12:28 rubys: We need to get the public statements clear. The mail from rich is not consistent with what is being said in this meeting.
15:12:35 ack ju
15:12:36 -ShaneM
15:12:41 ... we should get all the data we can back to the canvas editors.
15:12:56 scribe: chaals
15:12:59 +ShaneM
15:13:13 JB: I knew there were messages, didn't no someone saying it would be OK to wait for 2.0...
15:13:35 … we need to get those pieces back for this version. Work out how things got dropped and how to pick them up again.
15:14:06 … and there is a procedural issue - what dowe need to do if we put things back in. Depending on where and when they were dropped? WOuld the new process help here?
15:14:16 scribe: shanem
15:14:29 q+
15:14:33 ... first we need to verify and then we need to get it fixed.
15:14:52 q+
15:15:07 chaals: Note that if we move to the new process, then we could go straight into the CR again. That is up to the HTML Working Group.
15:15:11 ack me
15:15:13 ack ja
15:15:30 janina: I agree that we need to clean up the messaging. But it may be tricky because individuals have opinions.
15:15:53 q+ to propose a resolution…
15:16:07 ack paul
15:16:08 ... PF discussed it yesterday and thought a fix soon is important. If there is a level 1 that doesn't have it and then a level 2 a month later that might be okay. Since that is unlikely PF would object to putting it off.
15:16:12 Just to be clear: I simply want to connect the right people to have the right discussions. At the moment PF is having discussions without bring the results back to the canvas editors.
15:17:04 paulc: Strongly encourage the canvas task force to do all the testing and the edits. Let's not rush to judgement before we know the full scope of the changes and whether there is implementation support.
15:17:37 Judy: I understand that for this specific item we need to figure out what the changes are, but we don't think there are other items.
15:17:39 ack ri
15:18:15 paulc: If there are other things that could be uncovered through testing, let's uncover that now.
15:18:36 ... Also there is a new canvas TF. If PF has concerns, those should be conveyed to the new TF.
15:19:08 janina: Should we do a full review and test all sorts of things, or just cover this item?
15:19:37 paulc: Yes. Do everything you can to figure out what is missing, provide tests, and then propose how to process a document modified to satisfy the PF requirements.
15:19:59 richardschwerdtfeger: Screen reader users may want to magnify to focus on things.
15:20:32 Noting also that PC suggested an editor's revision of the CR doc with missing feature included for testing
15:20:38 ... you probably can get away with draw focus if needed, but you would need to call it on all regions and fallback content. That can be expensive. The reason it was added to hit region was to give the authors some benefit.
15:21:02 ... note that hit region will change for version 2.
15:21:30 ... if this is not already implemented in the browsers today (and it may not have been) we are in a position where that is going to take a very long time.
15:21:50 ... if that is the case then we might want to wait until a version 2 rather than delay version 1.
15:22:08 ... there is a lot of stuff in canvas 2.
15:22:59 chaals: Let's be sure we have tests written that cover what we think should be in the spec. That way we can decide better what should be included in this version.
15:23:36 ... basic understanding is that hit region is supposed to be in version 1 and it is not. We need to send a message to the HTML WG saying 'hey something went wrong and this fell out of the draft'.
15:24:12 ... but we need tests before we make a decision so we will know if we can still pass CR easily, or if we need to include the stuff from version 2 now, or we could wait until version 2.
15:24:24 ... are there tests enough now that can guide us in a recommendation?
15:24:46 I support Paul's suggestion: get the technical status clear, then make a concrete proposal.
15:24:48 MarkS: I don't think it would be difficult to write a test to quickly identify if it is supported or not. But I don't have time right now.
15:25:04 richardschwerdtfeger: I will write the testable statements so we know what we need to look for.
15:25:38 chaals: If you think it is reasonable to go ahead with the stuff we THOUGHT should have been in version 1, it seems like it is the lowest cost plan.
15:26:05 ... there would need to be a director's meeting, but that's not too difficult.
15:26:06 q+
15:26:16 ack me
15:26:16 chaals, you wanted to propose a resolution…
15:26:20 ack ju
15:26:24 richardschwerdtfeger: if is reasonable if there is good support and we can figure out what got dropped.
15:26:57 Judy: I agree. Let's focus on this for now. Whatever we already negotiated and agreed to, if that got dropped, let's make sure it gets back in.
15:27:17 (general agreement)
15:27:22 RESOLUTION: we will work on the assumption that the things that were dropped are useful and implemented. assuming Rich and Mark's testing show taht is the case, we will request that it get put back.
15:27:52 zakim, take up item 5
15:27:52 agendum 5. "Call for review of timed text" taken up [from janina]
15:28:43 Q+
15:28:43 chaals: we can look at this spec and suggest things that should happen. we can do it formally or individually.
15:28:53 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/ TTML spec for review
15:29:11 ack jf
15:29:12 janina: PF regularly looks as last calls and new publications. We have actioned JF to look it over.
15:29:56 q+
15:30:02 JF: It wasn't a formal action, but I have looked at the spec very briefly. There is a section that addreses WCAG considerations. At this point I don't have any burning concerns. If something surfaces I will respond.
15:30:02 ack me
15:30:51 chaals: The formal path would be that the TF makes a recommendation and then ask HTML WG to approve and forward the review, that seems heavy weight. Let's leave it to PF to do it since they are tasked with it.
15:31:35 janina: Sure, but this task force is tasked for dealing with issues between HTML and PF. PF will continue to bring things to the TF if coordination is needed.
15:31:43 zakim, next item
15:31:43 agendum 1. "Longdesc status" taken up [from janina]
15:31:48 zakim, take up item 6
15:31:48 agendum 6. "HTML5.1 and beyond" taken up [from janina]
15:31:51 zakim, close item 1
15:31:51 agendum 1, Longdesc status, closed
15:31:53 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:31:53 2. Alt Text Note Status [from janina]
15:31:57 zakim, take up item 6
15:31:57 agendum 6. "HTML5.1 and beyond" taken up [from janina]
15:32:20 -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/51wishlist HTML 5.1 items
15:32:48 chaals: We have looked at various aspects of 5.1. We have a wishlist. Do we have concrete proposals?
15:34:00 janina: Trying to lock down a time during TPAC where we can coordinate between PF, HTML, and SVG.
15:34:56 Please see how I updated the agenda wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-10-Agenda#F2F_Topics
15:35:29 ... topics include event enumeration on elements (DOM), digital publishing and PF are meeting, but have things to coordinate with HTML too.
15:35:56 q+
15:36:20 chaals: I would like accesskey to be revamped in 5.1, but I am not going to be available at TPAC
15:36:28 q+
15:36:38 q+
15:36:39 q+ to say that I would like to champion accesskey
15:37:02 ack pa
15:37:27 http://davidmacd.com/blog/html51-footnotes.html
15:37:28 paulc: I updated the agenda - a11y are in three parts.
15:37:50 (see the agenda for details)
15:38:57 janina: we dont think there is need to discuss name computation at TPAC
15:39:11 q?
15:39:52 ack ju
15:40:20 Judy: recommend also check with the UAAG working group on the accesskey stuff
15:41:00 David: put up a link to the beginning of a discussion on footnotes. I would like for us to flesh it out.
15:41:10 janina: we will have call-in capability at TPAC.
15:41:20 ack sh
15:41:20 ShaneM, you wanted to say that I would like to champion accesskey
15:41:30 SM: I am happyto champion the accesskey discussion
15:41:43 q+
15:41:52 -Judy
15:42:01 ack dav
15:42:06 ack jan
15:42:15 +Judy
15:43:17 janina: PF has a note from some years ago that is on point w.r.t. captcha. There is a big problem from China about this.
15:43:21 q+
15:44:48 Judy: there is not enough exposure about international a11y issues. We need to pay close attention to it.
15:45:05 ack cha
15:45:07 chaals: I understand that captcha is important. But how is it relevant to HTML? Is there something that we want to do in HTML 5.1?
15:45:33 janina: I think that is an open question? There can be supporting materials, but not clear if there are HTML language requirements.
15:45:41 ack cyn
15:45:53 http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest
15:46:04 q?
15:46:12 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/CAPTCHA_v2
15:46:46 Cyns: I don't think that there have been many improvements since the last version was published. Are there?
15:46:55 All of the suggested "possible" topics are now in https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-10-Agenda#F2F_Topics
15:47:08 janina: we have discussed it here. There are some ways it could be improved.
15:47:33 Cyns: There is a WCAG technique for some of the alternate ways of doing Captcha
15:47:48 chaals: I return to my question - how is it relevant to the HTML A11Y Task Force?
15:47:59 janina: You may be right that it is not relevant, but we have not worked it out.
15:48:09 s/worked it/ruled it/
15:48:31 chaals: We have identified some things that should be covered in HTML. The Wiki should be updated to reflect that.
15:48:37 q+
15:48:38 On WCAG we haven't solved Captcha yet. https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Captcha_Alternatives_and_thoughts
15:49:05 ack pau
15:49:13 janina: Is cynthia going to have anything ready on menus for TPAC?
15:49:15 Cyns: No.
15:50:15 paulc: The A11Y experts (from IndieUI) have been talking about editing stuff with the WebApps group. If there are things about the joint task force with WebApps / HTML joint task force, those are on the web apps agenda.
15:50:23 janina: we are interested in helping to coordinate that work.
15:50:30 chaals1 has joined #html-a11y
15:51:17 chaals: there is something relevant to this task force. There might be changes to what 'contenteditable' actually does.
15:51:27 paulc: I will add something to the agenda on contenteditable.
15:51:40 Cyn: Can you look me in on that discussion - I am not a member of either group.
15:51:53 janina: A lot if cross posted to IndieUI.
15:52:07