HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 12 Feb 2015

<trackbot> Date: 12 February 2015

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

<richardschwerdtfeger> [2/12/15, 9:18:24 AM] Mark Sadecki: rich, looks like there is some movement on this bug: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=425149

<richardschwerdtfeger> [2/12/15, 9:19:22 AM] Mark Sadecki: and looks like Dominic is looking for some more guidance on what else needs to be done. I am flat out right now. If you can leave a comment and fill him in, that would be great. You have the most historical perspective on this. Would also be great to get Rik C to comment

<scribe> ScribeNick: ShaneM

Additional agenda?

No additional items.

HTML-WG Face to Face -- Sam, Paul

paulc: No updates on the f2f status as yet.
... HTML will probably meet that week in Redmond. But not certain yet. Not sure what webapps will do,.

Media Subteam Update -- John, Shane, Janina

janina: Josh Neely and Janina had a conversation earlier this week. Some input. Will look at suggested tweaks next week.
... no email yet, but will forward to list when it is available.
... please take another look through the MAUR to see if it is applicable to WebRTC?
... I think some of it is applicable even though it is not specifically called out.

<janina> ck ju

Judy: the MAUR is also applicable to WebVTT. If anyone is interested in that angle and is reviewing please drop Judy a note.

Alt Note Status; Shane and Liam

<JF> Judy what would taht entail?/Judy what would taht entail?

<LJWatson> scribenick LJWatson

<LJWatson> SM: We've been addressing comments.

<LJWatson> LQ: Next couple of days will be editing the doc.

<LJWatson> LQ: Fixing first pie chart example, and general restructuring.

<LJWatson> SM: Language needs improving - mix of active and passive voice.

<LJWatson> JS: Worth fixing.

<LJWatson> SM: Yes, but need to prioritise.

<LJWatson> LQ: I'll do an editorial pass.

<LJWatson> SM: The doc content is reflected in the HTML5 spec.

<LJWatson> PC: Bugs were filed on the spec and changes were proposed and accepted into HTML5.

<LJWatson> PC: Is there duplication? Would require investigation, but I thought intent was to move advice into HTML5 because objection was to having guidance in two places.

<LJWatson> JS: Think normative should be in spec, informative in the note.

HTML5 document: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt

<LJWatson> PC: Why are we publishing this separately then?

<LJWatson> JS: My understanding is that there were differences.

<LJWatson> JB: WOuld be surprised if the content in both places were still the same.

<LJWatson> JS: Worth trying to identify the differences?

<LJWatson> JB: Yes, but I thought we were mainly checking bug status.

<LJWatson> PC: Concerned we could be taking time to publish a note that contains different advice to the spec.

<LJWatson> SM: It is definitively a duplicate.

<LJWatson> LQ: Agreed.

<LJWatson> JB: That may not have been reported to the TF.

<LJWatson> SM: I asked this when we first discussed taking this forward.

<LJWatson> SM: Steve said then it was a duplicate.

adk sha

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about duplication

<LJWatson> PC: Think we should take thi soffline. Shane perhaps you should do the investigation?

<scribe> ACTION: ShaneM to illustrate the duplications between HTML5 and alt-techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Illustrate the duplications between html5 and alt-techniques [on Shane McCarron - due 2015-02-19].

<cyns> in a place where I can't do audio, but montioring irc

<LJWatson> JB: There was interest in mapping some parts of this doc more directly to WCAG WG guidance on accessibility, and ensuring that that guidance is directly navigable to from HTML spec..

<LJWatson> JB: The doc was created because of mis-information in the spec originally.

<scribe> scribenick: ShaneM

<LJWatson> LW: Point of practicality it makes no sense to duplicate effort.

Notes Enhancement -- Shane, David

<LJWatson> SM: Group hasn't settled on a definite recommendation.

<LJWatson> LQ: Long discussion in Digital Publishing IG. Consensus is emerging about what the pro publishing world wants in terms of notes.

<LJWatson> JS: They're compiling use cases and requirements?

<LJWatson> LQ: Yes.

LQ: There might be a need for a11y advise once the DPub people do things about rendering.
... it might take a while.

<LJWatson> SM: Separating semantics from rendering is something we've got the dPub people to in their heads.

<LJWatson> SM: Think we'll get feedback about semantics before rendering.

janina: lots of traffic about this in the DPub interest group

The Future of Canvas 2D -- Sam

richardschwerdtfeger: drawfocus: one defect left before we have two implementations
... will follow up with Dominic today or tomorrow
... hit region support. Most features are already in FF. 1 or 2 defects left.
... in chrome there is quite a way to go. Not sure how long it will take to get it done.

SR: Are there any dates about hitregion?

richardschwerdtfeger: Not yet. No work is started on Safari. No work is started in IE as far as I know.

SR: Should we move hitregion to level 2?

richardschwerdtfeger: I don't want to see that, but we don't know how long it will take so maybe.

<rubys> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Canvas_Task_Force/CR-Test#drawFocusIfNeeded_when_a_default_path_is_provided_and_the_associated_fallback_element_is_descendant_of_the_element_with_focus._Scroll_the_window_so_that_the_canvas_moves.

richardschwerdtfeger: if we can get drawfocusifneeded done in time keep it. move hitregion to 2.

<rubys> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=425149

richardschwerdtfeger: don't know about that test issue. will check.

SR: Chrome thinks it is fixed, but we are not saying it works.

richardschwerdtfeger: they are not moving an item into view when focus is moved.

SR: There seems to have been discussion within the last 24 hours. Are we seeing when information about when it will be done'

richardschwerdtfeger: not sure yet. need to look.

Judy: If published without hitregion part, how much of an A11Y failure is that for canvas?
... if we have one and not the other, do we end up with an inaccessible canvas?

richardschwerdtfeger: yes, it makes it fairly inaccessible. magnifiers will not work well.
... hit testing for correlation with what is on the glass with what is underneath is needed for AT.

Judy: for a while we had good interaction about support and progress. Recently little progress. Is that true?

richardschwerdtfeger: yes.

Judy: If 2D goes out, the chance of a refresh being done is pretty slight. hitregion might just get reflected in 3D
... but some implementors are only going to support level 1. So would this be an a11y issue going forward?

SR: Note there is no 3D. There is level 1 and level 2.

paulc: chairs need to balance interest and urgency. There are people who need a rec because of its implied patent promise.
... we can't hold it up forever.
... this was put into WHATWG without Apple's permission. Anyone who has implemented this without a recommendation means they are at risk. They don't know the status of the IPR.
... so the chairs are trying to address the needs of the broader community.

Judy: It is unfortunate that we have not been able to get the implementation support despite a lot of back and forth for a long time.

janina: what is the likelyhood of level 2?

SR: at the moment there is no one working on level 1.

paulc: for the last 12 months people concentrated on getting html5 done.
... several people who were canvas editors have moved on within their companies because it took so long.
... if we can get level 1 done, we might be able to get people to get excited about level 2.
... because level 1 is not done, they are waiting before looking at level 2

Judy: Some staff changes. trying to proceed. doesn't really solve the issue, but it is not for lack of trying to get the A11Y aspects covered.
... so level 2 would be iffy. It is a gamble.

richardschwerdtfeger: is there a reason we can't work on level 2 while level 1 is still being wrapped up?

paulc: other than resources, no. Some work has been done on level 2 already.

richardschwerdtfeger: what sort of resources?

paulc: Judy has mentioned there is a gap in staff resources. I have mentioned that people have moved on because of the long delay.

Judy: We need resources for level 1 from the direct implementors.

plh: we have two implementations. what is the hold up?

SR: there is at least one test that has not been run. There is a bug that has been filed and has stalled.

plh: is it a critical bug? is it blocking publication?

richardschwerdtfeger: most of hitregion is supported in firefox

SR: there are more tests that have not been run.

janina: they could be in level 2 and point out that there is already support in FF.

SR: yes - they could move to level 2

richardschwerdtfeger: if level 2 only supports hitregion, would we release an update that only includes hitregion support?

SR: yes, if it passes the tests.

Judy: Are there some implementors that will only use level 1 and not move forward to level 2?

SR: I don't think we know that.

plh: We don't know.

Judy: I had heard that concern in the past. If it is an unfounded concern, then I won't worry about it.

paulc: If A11Y community is concerned about hitregion being missing from level 1, the chairs could ensure a draft of level 2 with hitregion is available at the same time as level 1 is published.

Judy: that would be great

<LJWatson> +1 to Paul's suggestion.

paulc: there's no reason not to get a draft out. We wouldn't know when it would get to Rec though.

SR: Remember that there is only one implementation.

Judy: any idea of the scope for how long?

paulc: well - HTML working group recharters in June, so we will need a schedule by then.

Judy: if there is any way to encourage people to pay attention to this critical feature, that would be helpful.

janina: some implementors are working on this hard now.

Judy: Righ?

SR: and we need tests!

s/Righ/Rich/?

janina: don't forget that IE can always surprise us too.

richardschwerdtfeger: we lost a critical resource in the middle of this. I have been working on SVG. I will try to get back and look at hitregion and work with Dominic.
... drawfocus is really close and I don't think it is too much work to finish.

SR: Let's add to next week's agenda.

TF Open Actions http://w3.org/wai/pf/html/track

plh: where are we in terms of the work statement for the task force

janina: we have not been making the edits yet, but we are close to knowing the list
... should know more later this afternoon.
... if there are more changes needed we should kick that around.
... e.g., making calls for consensus be more efficient

plh: that's great.

paulc: open action item question: action chaals took to explain the status of the various documents.
... API mappings status
... did he ever do that action item?

janina: disagreement about whether the HTML AAM should be a task force deliverable or a PF item?
... chairs? what should it be? complicates it if there is business that is task force related, and some that are not. PF would prefer that HTML items are dealt with in the task force.
... might clarify this later this afternoon too
... there are two editors named from the HTML working group for the document. Jason and Steve

http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-wai-aria-implementation-20140320/

<paulc> Is it: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-html-aapi-20131001/

<JF> bye all

paulc: the original HTML mapping guide was published by the HTMLWG. The Task Force has a responsibility for it. The update to this document is definitely in the scope of the task force.

<richardschwerdtfeger> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html

paulc: I had asked for a message about how core is related to SVG and the HTML mappings. I looked and can't even find an action item for this.

janina: the new one is close to ready for an FPWG

richardschwerdtfeger: SVG one is approved. HTML is being refactored to match that pattern.

janina: I expect this as a FPWD in March

paulc: why are we changing the short name? when it is a revision of the previous document?

plh: because it is a new document?

paulc: my understanding was that information from the old html document would have data removed into the core, making the HTML related document smaller
... so you are asking that the HTMLWG basically rescind this earlier document?
... publish as a note?

<liam> [Liam had to drop off]

janina: I wouldn't recommend that.

paulc: my point is why change the short name? the old one is is html-aapi
... I get your point that it would be nice if we got the original structure right in the first place. But the director may push back on this.

plh: if we ask the director there may be an issue. We could redirect the old short name to the new short name.

paulc: how much of the material from the old document has survived

janina: very little or none
... What we meant was the ARIA 1.0 Implementation Guide, not the html-aapi document.
... that's what is getting broken down.

richardschwerdtfeger: please let me know if the short name needs to change.

janina: we won't change the short names for core, svg, dpub

paulc: point 1. when are we going to tell the wokring group what is planned with html-aapi?
... janina is concerned about the domain of responsibility.

<plh> FPWD for html-aapi is at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-aapi-20110414/

paulc: I asked what the old document was. Let's agree for the sake of argument that we can deal with it orthoginally.

<plh> see http://www.specref.org/?q=html-aapi

paulc: if PF and the task force agree that html-aam should be published HTMLWG? Who is publishing SVG-aam

janina: joint publication

paulc: then html-aam should be a joint publication of the HTMLWG and PFWG.
... for the record I am okay if it is a complete new document.

plh: There was an FPWF of html-aapi in 2011. 6 publications until 2013 October. There is a broken link to the previous publication in the final version.

paulc: hopefully now you understand why I thought that html-aam was an evolution of this document.

plh: conclusion is that we should wrap up html-aapi and migrate to the new document

paulc: okay. but let's explain this to the HTML working group
... happy to help explain this to the task force and the working group

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

12 Feb 2015

Attendees

Contents