W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2010

[BUGS] Minutes of the HTML Accessibility TF Bug Triage Sub-Team, 14 September 2010

From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:36:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4C8FB28E.70003@namics.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Summary: We discussed 9 bugs that were NEW at the time of the assignment 
and added appropriate comments in Bugzilla.  Martin Kliehm was chosen as 
sub-team lead.  As homework for next week we will try to provide 
NEEDSINFO on 8 a11yTF bugs that haven't been assigned to TF members yet.

Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-irc


- DRAFT -

Bug Triage Sub-Team - HTML A11Y TF
14 Sep 2010

Attendees

Present
     Marco_Ranon, Michael_Cooper, kliehm, Joshue_O_Connor
Regrets
Chair
     Michael_Cooper
Scribe
     MichaelC

Contents

Topics
1. Lead for sub-group
2. Timeline
3. Modus operandi
4. Homework from 2 weeks ago
5. Homework
6. Next meeting
* Summary of Action Items


Marco, unfortunately the UK and France numbers only accept 2 connections 
each at a given time. If someone else has taken the slots, nobody else 
can use them.

They keep saying they're going to fix that but I haven't heard about any 
progress.

<Marco_Ranon> Thanks Michael. I know. I can't dial the US number from 
the office though

<Marco_Ranon> Is it OK if I stay on IRC only?

Can you use Skype?

<Marco_Ranon> It's blocked.

i.e., if we switch to that instead of Zakim.

Darn.

I guess we'll do our best

<Marco_Ranon> i can try to see if I have a mobile broadband.

Marco, if we do the meeting a bit later, can you do it Skype from home?

<Marco_Ranon> Sorry to ba a pain... I've just moved house and have no 
broadband yet...

heh, ok

ok, we'll try to mirror IRC well so you can follow and contribute

<Marco_Ranon> thanks.

<Marco_Ranon> i didn't know.


=== Lead for sub-group ===

Suggestion to have Martin formally lead this sub-group - set agenda, 
chair calls, implement decisions in bugzilla. Is this proposal ok?

<Marco_Ranon> OK with me.

will need fallback lead when unavailable

RESOLUTION: Martin is lead of the bug triage sub-group

<Marco_Ranon> Martin is more familiar with procedures and bugzilla than 
I am.


=== Timeline ===

Deadline for new bugs to be considered before LC is 1 October 2010

all bugs filed before that date will be processed

bugs filed after that date will be queued up for later processing, may 
ultimately get processed before HTML finalized but no guarantee

this means any major accessibility issues need to be filed by then

Janina, Mike, and Michael discussed that we probably need to file bugs 
for drag&drop and keyboard access

plan to focus on that this week

not sure there's direct impact on bug triage group since we're dealing 
with existing bugs

the deadline that affect us is 22 January 2011, last date to request 
escalation of bugs into formal protest

bug triage subteam must pay close attention to this

as this is a central aspect of our work

<kliehm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html

next major deadline is 23 February 2011, need change proposals for all 
escalated issues

could impact bug triage sub-team, but may be more in the larger TF

so these are the deadlines we work under right now

it may be that after these, bug triage sub-team can disband, at least 
until another bug processing opportunity arises

comments, questions?

<Marco_Ranon> basically we have two weeks to go through or list of bugs?

clarification: bugs filed after 1 October 2010 will handled as Last Call 
comments, when that stage is arrived at

we will probably need to reband at that point to process comments at 
that time

we have two weeks to file new bugs

<Marco_Ranon> ok.

we have 3 months to process the entire set of bugs on our plate

until 22 January 2011

concerns?

<kliehm> no

<Marco_Ranon> no


=== Modus operandi ===

Martin and Michael discussed last week

any new input into that for now?

<Marco_Ranon> no

http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#item02


=== Homework from 2 weeks ago ===

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0084.html

<Marco_Ranon> Nothing to comment on Joshue bugs you discussed last week. 
I saw the emails from both MC and MK last week.

8674, proposal is to mark verified wontfix

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8674

<Marco_Ranon> ok. sorry.yes. no objections

8681, proposal is to close (not accessibility)

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8681

<Marco_Ranon> I agree

TF previously indicated it would provide further info (Feb 2010)

now we'd be saying "never mind"

<Marco_Ranon> i just don't see where it could be an accessibility issue

ok, accepting proposed disposition

8754, proposal is to accept editor response

in May we wanted Gez to do a change proposal

though this might have been a bug that originated with Cynthia

<Marco_Ranon> Personally, I don't think that having modern UAs allowing 
to zoom is an excuse to ignore this problem. I often resize text only 
and in RNIB we do check for text only resizing to work correctly

me too, I'm worried that there may be a general issue, even if the 
particular one in the bug isn't one

not clear if it's a content language issue, or a user agent issue

we wouldn't want override of explicitly author-set overflow:hidden though

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8754

(it's an accessibility problem the author has chosen to go into, perhaps 
with good reason)

the base issue may be one of clipping when zooming

<Marco_Ranon> i think it should be down to the UA to render the text 
even if visually hidden

<Marco_Ranon> the Assistive technology more than the UA

think we should go ahead and close this bug, but alert UAAG WG that they 
should document the larger issue in Implementing UAAG 2.0

<Marco_Ranon> sound sensible to me

because it's not a problem in current *modern* browsers, but we we 
wouldn't want a new browser to re-introduce the problem

<scribe> ACTION: cooper to refer bug 8754 to UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action01]

8827 and 8872, both seem related to ISSUE-31

<kliehm> 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Escalating_a_Bug_to_an_Issue 
says TrackerRequest should be added before a bug is escalated to an issue

seems like it should have the trackerissue keyword just to confirm this

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8827

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31

adding TrackerIssue keyword to 8827, leaving 8872 alone

<kliehm> Next. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061

<Marco_Ranon> OK

9061, proposal is to reopen because open for counter-proposals

but process is not to reopen bugs that have been escalated

maybe we should just add a comment that bug triage sub-team understands 
this is open for counter-proposals and needs no further tracking at TF 
level at this time

<kliehm> +1

<Marco_Ranon> +1

9098, proposal to close as is

<Marco_Ranon> i agree in principle. I think @src should be essential 
part of IMG, and @alt the accessible alternative. But as MC said, i 
wouldn't be useful to argue this point

<Marco_Ranon> Joshue, I've been trying for an hour...

<Joshue> yeah

<Joshue> ok, IRC it is!

we're about to wrap up

in a bug or two

<Joshue> I thought it starts at 5?

<Joshue> Oh, no!

<Joshue> I got the time wrong didn't I :-(

<Joshue> Sorry guys..

:( yeah, it's 4pm IST

<Joshue> Ok, I'll amend /both/ my calenders for next time..

<Joshue> Some thoughts for the record..

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9098

<Joshue> For http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9212

<Joshue> Am unsure, it seems to be spanning two use cases. 1) Where the 
user creates alternate text for individual images 2) Batch processing. I 
am not convinced that both issues are being dealt with here, and agree 
with Lauras initial concerns.

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9215

<Joshue> Josh: I haven?t parsed this bug.

<Joshue> Bug 9061 - allow image maps on the canvas element. 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061

<Joshue> This bug relates to the ?how are we gonna make canvas 
accessible? discussion. Have we a concensus on this issue right now? Or 
at least have we decided which routes to not go down?

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8674#c2

we think 9098 should just be added as a reference from ISSUE-31

<Joshue> Ok, if nested menus that provide this functionality

<Joshue> Thats fine..

<Joshue> For 8681, fine close it.

<Joshue> Bug 8754: Overflow when text is resized

<Joshue> Josh: Yes, agree with the resolution, accept and close.

<Joshue> Does 8827 need the keyword TrackerIssue? Yes. I think this is 
still an issue.

<Joshue> I have stuff here relating to 'my' bugs that I sent to the PF 
list, will I post them here?

<Joshue> Bug 9437 - change ARIA section title and add extra text about 
use of ARIA.[

we went through them last week, though had question on one

<Joshue> ok, which one?

<Joshue> Sorry I couldn't make last week, I was travelleing to Sweden.

hang on, we're trying to go through these one at a time

still on 9098

<Joshue> ok

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9212

<Joshue> Re: 9212 The suggestion is to change the 'generated' mechanism 
- comes from a worry that authors will abuse it and not bother to 
generate alternate text for individual images when doing bulk uploads 
etc, and that the current spec allows them to do this. Hixie then claims 
that the current spec trusts that authors wouldn't abuse the current 
model (as a matter of pride). He does make a good point about using 
current 'batch' tools to push large amounts of conten

<Joshue> Re: 9212 Are there APIs that can detect the tool being used and 
therefore provide a document level generator mechanism, when suitable 
and an element level mechanism otherwise? To me it seems that whatever 
is the most prevalent use case should be the default, which I suggest is 
the more granular method - so HTML 5 should support Element Level 
generator mechanism by default.

<Joshue> my 2 cents..

Josh, would you mind adding those comments to the bug as a clarification?

<Joshue> Yup, will do that now.

we don't see any further action to take at this point because it's 
already escalated

<Joshue> done

<Joshue> fine

Thx. It turns out this is the one from last week we weren't sure about.

<Joshue> ok, sin e.

<Joshue> Sorry, outburst of Gaeilge.


=== Homework ===

<Joshue> Ok, I'll take a few more bugs Michael.

There are homework assignments from 
http://www.w3.org/2010/08/31-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#item01 to do if 
they're not done yet

also looking at new homework for this week

<Marco_Ranon> I went through my list for this week. Most The of them are 
about ARIA mapping. Steve Faulkner addressed them in his email to Maciej 
on 10 September 2010: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0285.html

<kliehm> In particular, Joshue could you address 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9871

<Joshue> Will do Martin.

Suggest we look at NEEDSINFO bugs for this coming week

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=NEEDSINFO

some of these are already assigned to someone to provide the info, we 
just need to ping

<Joshue> So all on this list are NEEDSINFO bugs?

assigning 2 each, need to try to provide the actual info as part of the 
homework

some may be easy, some not

Martin to take 8622 and 8645

Marco to take 8715 and 8722

Josh to take 8740 and 8885

<Joshue> Yeah, some are mammoth. @alt, ARIA and A11y API mappings etc

Michael to take 10252 and 10483

we may not be able to provide all the needed info

<Joshue> ok

but let's make a good faith effort to try as part of the homework

(plus catching up on last week's homework)

<scribe> ACTION: Michael to ping owners of bugs in 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=NEEDSINFO 
to make sure they're working on them [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action02]

<Joshue> For the record, I don't have much more to add on the Bugs I 
got, so..

do you want to trade? or get help from colleagues, or tweet a question 
and see what comes up?


=== Next meeting ===

Martin sends regrets

<Joshue> Fine with me

<Marco_Ranon> fine with me too

<Marco_Ranon> thanks. i am better now

<Joshue> So just to be clear, are we looking for more info on these 
bugs, or to state proposals?

next meeting will take place as usual: Tuesday 21 September at 15:00 UTC 
17:00 CEST 16:00 BST / IST 11:00 EDT

prepare proposals if possible, though don't add to the bug itself

<Joshue> Ok, fine.

hopefully better telephony

<Marco_Ranon> bye

<Marco_Ranon> i'll have a look. i might be able to work from home

<Marco_Ranon> bye


=== Summary of Action Items ===

[NEW] ACTION: cooper to refer bug 8754 to UAWG [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Michael to ping owners of bugs in 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=NEEDSINFO 
to make sure they're working on them [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action02]
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 17:36:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:18 GMT