13:00:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #svg-a11y
13:00:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-irc
13:00:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #svg-a11y
13:00:36 <LJWatson> zakim, this is 2742
13:00:37 <Zakim> LJWatson, I see WAI_SVGTF()9:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be 2742".
13:00:46 <LJWatson> zakim, this will be 2742
13:00:46 <Zakim> ok, LJWatson; I see WAI_SVGTF()9:00AM scheduled to start now
13:00:54 <LJWatson> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
13:01:04 <LJWatson> chair: Fred Esch
13:01:09 <LJWatson> present+ Fred Esch
13:01:15 <LJWatson> present+ Doug Schepers
13:01:20 <LJWatson> present+ LJWatson
13:01:27 <LJWatson> zakim, agenda?
13:01:27 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
13:02:39 <LJWatson> agenda+ Roles for ARIA 1.1
13:02:41 <Zakim> WAI_SVGTF()9:00AM has now started
13:02:49 <Zakim> + +1.512.286.aaaa
13:03:06 <fesch> https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_roles_for_graphics
13:03:18 <LJWatson> present+ Amelia BR
13:03:35 <LJWatson> scribenick: LJWatson
13:03:39 <LJWatson> zakim, take up item 1
13:03:40 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Roles for ARIA 1.1" taken up [from LJWatson]
13:04:39 <LJWatson> ABR: There is currently only one role for SVG graphics, and it assumes all child components are presentational.
13:05:06 <LJWatson> ... At the least we need to propose a role that respresents structured SVG images.
13:05:26 <LJWatson> s/respresents/represents/
13:06:13 <Amy> Amy has joined #svg-a11y
13:06:39 <LJWatson> ... My basic proposal was a "graphic" role, that could be applied to the whole or part of a structured image.
13:07:27 <fesch> https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_roles_for_graphics
13:08:44 <LJWatson> ... I also suggested "figure" to represent a figure in the sense of a technical document figure.
13:09:25 <shepazu> q+
13:09:28 <fesch> q?
13:09:55 <fesch> q+
13:10:25 <LJWatson> ... Another suggestion is the "icon" role, with dual roles as a stand-alone icon in the page, and icons as symbols within a chart or other complex SVG.
13:11:19 <LJWatson> ... Final suggestion was a "shape" role, to represent simple geometric shapes.
13:11:53 <fesch> q?
13:11:54 <LJWatson> ... The "shape" role would need an attribute to enable the type of shape to be conveyed.
13:11:58 <fesch> https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_roles_for_graphics
13:12:00 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:12:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:12:10 <shepazu> (note that "figure" may be confused with HTML <figure> unless they have the same semantics
13:12:20 <fesch> ack shepazu
13:13:30 <LJWatson> DS: Wouldn't the <title> be the way to indicate shape?
13:13:46 <fesch> q?
13:14:25 <LJWatson> TOPIC: The shape role
13:14:52 <AmeliaBR> q+
13:15:30 <LJWatson> LW: Tend to agree with Doug. The <title> would be a good way to provide that information, at least as a first step.
13:16:07 <LJWatson> FE: +1
13:16:56 <LJWatson> ABR: Happy to go along with the idea that it's up to the author to express what sort of shape it is.
13:17:19 <LJWatson> ... If the author doesn't, should the browser be able to infer a name based on the actual geometry though?
13:17:53 <LJWatson> FE: Amelia, you're happy if we don't include a shape role right now?
13:18:21 <LJWatson> RESOLUTION: We will not propose the shape role for ARIA 1.1.
13:18:29 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:18:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:18:56 <LJWatson> TOPIC: The img role
13:19:22 <LJWatson> ABR: We can't change the existing img role. We can chip away at it by excluding certain things from it.
13:19:25 <fesch> ack me
13:19:31 <LJWatson> ... Specifically that children are presentational.
13:20:20 <LJWatson> LW: If we do change the role's characteristics, do we need to indicate it's specifity to SVG?
13:20:38 <LJWatson> DS: We're addressing different use cases.
13:20:44 <LJWatson> LW: So we need a new role?
13:20:47 <LJWatson> DS: Yes.
13:21:45 <LJWatson> TOPIC: Structured image role
13:21:54 <LJWatson> ABR: Key question is what we call it.
13:22:00 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:22:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:22:50 <LJWatson> LW: A role called "graphic" seems too general.
13:22:57 <shepazu> q+
13:23:14 <LJWatson> ABR: Concern with including "img" in the name, for example "structuredimg", is that it's confusing.
13:23:58 <fesch> ack Amel
13:24:13 <LJWatson> ... I want something flexible, that can cover different kinds of structured graphic.
13:24:36 <LJWatson> LW: I liked Chaals suggestion of "compoundImage".
13:24:51 <LJWatson> ABR: My concern is whether people will recognise that it could be nested groups?
13:25:15 <LJWatson> FE: Thinks a separate role for nested images would be good.
13:25:31 <LJWatson> DS: Will people understand "compound image" in the real world?
13:25:36 <LJWatson> FE: I don't think so.
13:26:24 <LJWatson> LW: I think "compound" is familiar enough in the English language to be understood.
13:26:39 <LJWatson> ABR: We could use "complex".
13:26:50 <LJWatson> FE: But "complex" also means hard to understand.
13:26:58 <LJWatson> LW: These images need not be complex either.
13:27:37 <LJWatson> DS: I don't see why some of the examples on the wiki couldn't just be an image?
13:28:14 <LJWatson> DS: The house example... what is the benefit of defining it as a compound?
13:28:28 <LJWatson> ABR: The limitation that if you define it as an "img" you cannot explore its child components.
13:29:03 <LJWatson> DS: Léonie, you say "graphic" is too ambiguous?
13:29:14 <LJWatson> ... Isn't that the intention of this proposed role?
13:29:49 <LJWatson> LW: To the average person a graphic and an image are the same thing.
13:30:00 <LJWatson> FE: If we add more specific roles later, those would be specific, no?
13:30:19 <LJWatson> LW: Yes, but that wouldn't help me understand the difference between a graphic and an image.
13:31:14 <Zakim> - +1.512.286.aaaa
13:31:15 <Zakim> WAI_SVGTF()9:00AM has ended
13:31:15 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.512.286.aaaa
13:31:34 <LJWatson> ABR: The problem is you need to understand the difference without reading the spec?
13:31:37 <LJWatson> LW: Yes.
13:31:57 <LJWatson> ABR: We need to indicate the explorability of the image.
13:32:05 <LJWatson> FE: So "chart", "map"...
13:32:12 <LJWatson> ABR: We need something more generic.
13:32:55 <shepazu> q+
13:33:01 <LJWatson> LW: If someone said something was a "compound image", what would you interpret it to mean?
13:33:12 <LJWatson> FE: A collage or something artistic.
13:34:07 <LJWatson> ABR: If you use complex markup to represent a graphic, but it only makes sense as a composite unit, you want a way to convey that.
13:34:19 <LJWatson> JW: So let's do that with an attribute instead.
13:34:22 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:34:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:34:33 <LJWatson> DS: Another problem is that we can't change image.
13:34:40 <LJWatson> ABR: Right, it's already out there.
13:34:51 <LJWatson> JW: Not concerned about that. It's never used correctly.
13:35:05 <LJWatson> DS: There will be lots of different opinions about that.
13:35:53 <LJWatson> DS: Suggest we set this aside for now, have more discussion on the mailing list.
13:35:54 <LJWatson> +1
13:36:12 <LJWatson> TOPIC: The figure role
13:36:23 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:36:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:36:28 <LJWatson> present+ Jason White
13:36:52 <LJWatson> ABR: Need a way to identify a graphic, and at the same time its position within the larger document.
13:37:06 <LJWatson> ... Concerns are that it will get confused with HTML figure.
13:37:35 <LJWatson> LW: Is the conceptual idea the same as with HTML?
13:37:48 <LJWatson> ABR: Yes, but the HTML interpretation is broader.
13:38:07 <LJWatson> ... One option would be to match the HTML figure role.
13:38:20 <LJWatson> FE: So it would be used for something like a plan view or an overhead view?
13:38:24 <LJWatson> DS: No.
13:38:57 <LJWatson> ABR: In HTML <figure> allows for non-graphical content.
13:39:31 <LJWatson> DS: HTML treats figure as a point of reference... "See fig. 3" for example.
13:39:55 <AmeliaBR> The HTML5 figure: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element
13:40:11 <LJWatson> ... Think ARIA should have this role. It might not encompass everything we want to do with SVG, but that's not the point.
13:40:33 <LJWatson> ... Agree with Léonie, we should leave the HTML meaning of figure as the default meaning.
13:40:39 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:40:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:41:09 <LJWatson> ABR reads figure definition from HTML spec.
13:41:27 <LJWatson> DS: Right, all of which can be done in SVG. So the figure role "as is" is totally appropriate.
13:41:30 <LJWatson> LW: +1
13:41:54 <LJWatson> FE: Thought point was if you wanted to focus someone's view on a figure?
13:42:46 <LJWatson> ABR: Mostly it's how some SVG relates to the larger document in which it sits.
13:42:53 <LJWatson> FE: Would the role go on the <svg>?
13:42:58 <LJWatson> ABR: Yes.
13:43:05 <LJWatson> FE: What about inside an SVG?
13:43:14 <LJWatson> ABR: If you had a multi-part graph for example, yes.
13:43:33 <LJWatson> FE: Like a 3D technical drawing, you could use figures to indicate different views of the schematic?
13:43:36 <LJWatson> ABR: Yes.
13:44:07 <LJWatson> DS: Wouldn't try to yoke it to the idea of a "view". A "figure" is more generic.
13:44:13 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:44:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:45:01 <LJWatson> DS: It's a generic and long standing concept. We shouldn't try to change it.
13:46:05 <LJWatson> JW: What does it map to for the <figure> element?
13:46:09 <LJWatson> LW: Believe it's group.
13:46:39 <AmeliaBR> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aam-1.0/#html-element-role-mappings
13:47:28 <LJWatson> RESOLUTION: We propose a figure role HTML5 concept of figure.
13:47:36 <fesch> +1
13:48:22 <LJWatson> s/RESOLUTION: We propose a figure role HTML5 concept of figure./RESOLUTION: We propose a figure role based on the HTML5 concept of figure./
13:48:30 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:48:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:49:02 <LJWatson> ABR: Should anyone follow up with the group responsible for the HTML acc roles?
13:49:20 <LJWatson> FE: We'll discuss later.
13:49:24 <LJWatson> TOPIC: The icon role
13:49:47 <shepazu> q+
13:49:51 <LJWatson> ABR: Key question is whether icon and symbol should be different roles?
13:50:02 <LJWatson> DS: Think it's useful to have both.
13:50:04 <LJWatson> +1
13:50:27 <fesch> +1
13:50:35 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
13:50:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
13:51:05 <LJWatson> DS: An icon usually represents a point of interaction, or a stand-in for something else.
13:51:23 <LJWatson> FE: It's atomic.
13:51:44 <LJWatson> ABR: We could use img as the 1.0 fallback.
13:52:21 <LJWatson> ... We need to think about icons used in a widget role. Don't think we could specify something was both a button and an icon for example?
13:52:31 <LJWatson> ... There are other icon use cases though.
13:52:47 <LJWatson> ... Like a weather status for example.
13:52:53 <LJWatson> FE: I'd call that a symbol.
13:53:03 <LJWatson> ABR: If it was part of a set of icons in a web page, no.
13:53:36 <LJWatson> LW: Does anyone disagree with having an icon role?
13:53:50 <LJWatson> RESOLUTION: We will propose an icon role for ARIA 1.1.
13:54:19 <LJWatson> DS: If it's atomic does it mean that the <title> and <desc> would not both be read?
13:54:33 <LJWatson> FE: No, only that there are no child components to explore.
13:54:51 <LJWatson> TOPIC: The symbol role
13:55:42 <LJWatson> ABR: Similar to an icon, but typically used within a more complex graphic - like symbols to represent categories in a scatter graph.
13:56:10 <LJWatson> ... Is there agreement this is a useful role to have?
13:56:12 <LJWatson> +1
13:57:13 <LJWatson> DS: Yes. Want to share the difference between an icon and symbol...
13:57:14 <shepazu> http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-icon-and-vs-symbol/
13:57:45 <LJWatson> ... an icon looks like the thing it represents, a symbol does not.
13:57:57 <LJWatson> ABR: So a symbol is more abstract.
13:58:28 <LJWatson> DS: Think the key differentiation must be that a symbol is a reference to something else within a larger graphic.
13:58:58 <LJWatson> ABR: When the distinction is based on context, what happens if the role is used outside of that context?
13:59:14 <LJWatson> FE: We could limit the roles scope.
13:59:20 <LJWatson> DS: Seems functional.
13:59:38 <LJWatson> LW: I hesitate to add restrictions.
13:59:54 <LJWatson> ABR: Yes, you could have a complete SVG UI that included icons for example.
14:00:22 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson
14:01:39 <LJWatson> Meeting: SVG A11y TF meeting
14:02:00 <LJWatson> rrsagent, make minutes
14:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/29-svg-a11y-minutes.html LJWatson