W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2011

[Minutes] HTML-A11Y TF Teleconference on 25 August

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <077901cc6341$34ed1b00$9ec75100$@edu>

The Minutes from today's teleconference call can be found here:

...or in plain text immediately after this announcement. As is always the
case, corrections and comments should be posted to this list.



HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
25 Aug 2011


See also: IRC log
Janina, Mike, John_Foliot, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Léonie_Watson, Rich
Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 25 August 2011

<scribe> scribe: JF

MC: summary of the work of bug-triage team

members of team include Leonie, M. Cooper, Marco Ranon, Hans Hillen,
Everett Zuefeltt

have a working plan for the next few weeks

<MichaelC> Bug triage minutes 23 August 2011

<MichaelC> bug triage sub-team looking at a11y bugs since LC that aren't
yet a11ytf

<MichaelC> to decide if they need to be TF priorities

JS: looking at the consensus policy, and see if we can tweak it to better
reflect how we are working today

<MichaelC> towards a next step which is pushing back on priority
assignments made by chairs

<MichaelC> if needed

<MichaelC> a window for that in early september

JS: it appears for example that much of the work has been emerging from
the sub-teams

<MichaelC> next sub-team will look at all bugs since LC and determine if
they have a11y relationship

<MichaelC> then proceed with triaging those over the upcoming quarter

it seems however that we are voting 3 times on the same issue

which leads to some confusion

JS: if we can reduce the amount of voting, even down to 2, then that is a

would like to see us acknowledge that much of the heavy lifting is being
done at the sub-team level

and if we assign work-effort to a sub-team, that this TF then support the
expertw charged with that work

so perhaps allow the sub-teams to work a little more informally

JS: looking at both media and canvas, this larger TF normally accepted the
recommendations of the sub-team without question

JB: have started to brains-storm, but we need to be very clear on what
problem(s) we aqre trying to solve

it seems that perhaps the process is overly complex

JB: the multi step nature means that it can cause some delay

perhaps associated to the WBS survey mechanism

JB: so, envisioning different scenarios, are the ways we can avoid being
delayed. Perhaps 2 levels of formality/process

so for example bug filing and issue of re-open requests and what-not

Perhaps those could be assigned to the sub-groups. But there may also be
other things that would be better handled with a more formal process

so it would be useful to enumerate issues and scenarios where the process
is stalling work, and then look to see if we can revisit the process there

JS: one thing specifically missing is because we do not say anything about
the sub-teams in the consensus policy process

so we cannot point to the fact that the sub-teams are working on a
particular issue/point

JB: not sure however if that addresses the requirement for different

JS: where to kick into a more formal process is worth investigating
 ... Looking at issues within the media sub-team, that group discussed and
reach agreement, and then it was pushed through often directly to the

WG without it going through this Thursday meeting

(it skiped right overthis group), and it was non-controversial

JB: are you then proposing to draft something different for others to

JS: yes, exactly. just seeking feedback
 ... likes that the facilitators can guide discussion and move things

agree that there are other issues that might be more sensitive, and so
sensitive things are likely to end up in surveys

media, canvas, aria-mappings were less controversial

LW: agree in principle with what Janina is proposing

JS: wonders if Mike TM has any feedback about this line of process

MS: the way the HTML5 process has evolved is that it was originally
written by maciej, and then has been fine-tuned over the longer haul
 ... but it all starts with somebody initially writing up something, and
then seeking wider feedback
 ... so that would need to happen. but having a streamlined process is
overall a good thing

JS: seems I am volunteering to write a new draft - hopefully I can have
that in early September
 ... ASking Rich for feedback on Canvas

RS: waiting for Ian to respond to Charles Pritchard re: changes to focus
 ... there was something for scroll-into-view

talked with Jonas, and if wee can put the paths in, then we can use a CSS
property that is already in the layout engine

just need to ensue that the CP for that, that anything having to do with
CSS functions would also be applicable there

so agreed that it could be closed

RS: another defect is on content-editable and designmode

Ayreh agreed that this needed to be re-written, and that is moving forward

JS: this will be re-integrated into the HTML5 spec

RS: the other issue is around the standardized keyboard input

instead of putting those features into that part of the document, they
wanted to put it into a seperate authoring spec

RS: Ayreh has created a seperate document - issue is that it is a document
outside of W3C, even though it is actually a good idea

there is some discussion about how to bring that into the W3C. Ayreh not
keen on following the W3C process

RS: reading the note from Ayreh about W3C Community Groups

so this looks like Ayreh will look to use this forum to bring it back into

RS: I think this is a good thing that the W3C is making things more open
and nimble then it's a good thing

and this editing spec likely moving into W3C space is an example of why


RS: not sure if everyone can read that, but this is/was Ayreh's posting

<richardschwerdtfe> http://www.w3.org/community/editing/

RS: Have heard a bit about Community Groups, but curious how that process
and not being on Rec Track works

JB: I am also investigating this at this time, but not ready to answer at
this time
 ... text sub-team update

have been looking at the table summary issue, the meta generator issue,
and the response to Jonas' longdesc CP

with meta-name and summary we are still looking for more feedback

John's draft response to Jonas - he's looking for more editorial feedback

JB; we have also noted that the next 2 Mondays present schedule conflicts

so we are looking at a possible day-shift as a one-off

(wonders if aiming for a Tuesday 4:00 PM Boston time would work -
wondering on impact for European attendees)

JB: but looking to move it to a more regular time slot that is not Monday
 ... will try some alternative dates and times on the list

LW: the ideal time for me would be Tuesday before or after the bug-triage
call (seems like tht is 11:00 PM Bos)

JS: concerned about making a permanent move as that might impact on
European participation
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 16:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:23 UTC