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

[Minutes] HTML-A11Y TF Teleconference on 29 September

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011101cc82db$a502bad0$ef083070$@edu>
Friends,

With apologies for the delay, the Minutes from *Last Thursday'*s
teleconference call can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-html-a11y-minutes.html


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

JF

*******************
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
29 Sep 2011

 Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
John_Foliot, Mike, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly, paulc,
MikeSmith, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon
Chair
Mike_Smith
Scribe
Rich, JF
Contents
Topics 
Subteam Reports: Media; Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Bug Triage
follow-up from last week on canvas status (Rich)
meta@name=generator alt-text CP (Steve)
review bugzilla a11y-tf "needs info" bugs
Summary of Action Items



<trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011

<scribe> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<scribe> scribenick: JF

<paulc> What is the phone number for the TF meeting?

MS: waiting on Rich, as we need to follow up on some Canvas items

<paulc> I am having audio/mute problems.

also want to look at CP for meta-generator issue

finally want to review bugs in bugzilla tagged needs into

and if time allows others as well
Subteam Reports: Media; Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Bug Triage

JB: we met this week. John is about to release a response to Jonas this
week

discussed what if anything to do about matt's CP

Janina will be working on that, witing on John's response to be released

as some of her response would be pointers to comments in John's response

re: summary, Josh has updated his response a few times based on feedback

Laura and others still had some concerns re: use-case gaps

but laura responded today and so awaiting follow through there

text sub-group supports Steve's work on Metagenerator

there is a new concerns around the generated content issues that emerged
from the review process

but is a new issue that requires new exploration before something further
can be done

MS: we *do* have the metagenerator issue on today's agenda

JB if questions do come up having Steve available is good

MS: next, media sub team?

JB: they have not been meeting of late, but are planning on reconvening

MS: yes, seems everything is under control there
 ... Cyns, any addition s around ARIA mapping of late?

Cyns: No

JB: looking to possibly move the text meeting time from Monday to Tuesday.
Judy will be checking and will advise via the list

MS: is this to accomodate schedules?

JB: yes

MS: we also have the bug triage team. we will be looking at this in depth
later on the call

MC: main thing is we have finished going through the whole list

we found some that were on the line, and have pointed them to the
sub-teams

others appeared fixed, but we are still watching them

nest task is to look at the prioritization of the bugs in bugzilla

JS: was re-reading the current decision policy. Noted some points around
escaaltion issues

are we aware of that

MC: we are aware, and Mike Smith has discussed with chairs - will approach
on a case-by-case basis

JS: I am reading that if the editor puts in a WONTFIX then the clock
starts ticking

MC: that does not seem to be what the Chairs timeline states

MS: yes, we should look at that now

<paulc> I believe the last escalation date is in Jan 2012

don't beleive there is any deadline set if moved to WONTFIX, unless there
has been some change to the Decision policy

<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

<paulc> I agree with Michael Cooper.

<paulc> Jan 14 is the key date.

MC: my reading is next deadline is Jan. 14th for cutoof

JS: refer to Section 5

[folks reviewing]

<MikeSmith_> Zakim, call Mike

<paulc> What document is Janina reviewing?

<MikeSmith_> Zakim, call Mike

JB: Paul is noting that he agrees with MC

JS: perhaps I should be putting this into an email

<paulc> Just give us the URL of the document - the decision-policy.html
has no "section 5"

JB: Just want to be sure that we are not looking at an oldre version of
the Decision polidy

<paulc> See
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html

MC: I am looking at both versions (V1 & V2) and not seeing any dates in
either

<janina>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html

JS: I will come back with this, as it did jump out at me

will review and readdress with a more targeted question

<MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike

<MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike-goog

<paulc> Schedule is documented in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html

<paulc> - Jan 14, 2012 - cutoff for escalating bugs for Last Call
consideration - all Tracker Issues in Tracker, calls for proposal issued
by this date
follow-up from last week on canvas status (Rich)

<paulc> Yes, mjs is back

RS: will likely need some advice here. Is Maciej back from vacation

I need Macieij to review the focus-ring /clikcable regions

proposal. the question is

Sam asked if Rich wants to escalate this

but with vacation schedules there has been slow progresss

there is another bug around clickable regions

Ian dismissed it but likely just needs more infor

do we need to escalate that?

MS: not really sure

RS: Rich is getting conflicting questions

there is a defect - essentially hit-testing on canvas

Ian closed it, but it's not sufficient

it's not, explained to Ian and it was reopened, then same responded with
the Q- do you want to escalate this?

JB: this seems like a similar issue we had on the text team call as well
 ... if we risk a repeated open/close go 'round then perhaps we should
escalate

MS: hixie already clsed this, but then Rich responded with further
clarrification, but hixie has not yet responded

so not sure if we need to act yet

MS: My understanding of the process is that we have the right to take the
WONTFIX response and then escalate it

RS: I reopened it, should I escalate it?

MS: you are the one to make the call there

the criteria is whether you have a chance of changing hixie's mind or not

in this case, unsure

MS: but you do not have to wait to hear from him to escalate it however

If that is the case, revert it back to the editor's WONTFIX status and
then tag with Issue Tracker

RS: that seems odd to do

MS: it is just you reverting it back to the original state of the response
from the Editor

the other thing is that we can raise the priority of thie bug in hixies
queue

that might be a better way to move this forward

ask the chairs to raise the priority

RS: there is that one, and there is another one around binding
mouse-events

I have responded to hixie's request for more info, but have not heard from
hixie

Sam asked if Rich wanted to escalate that one too, but there has been no
responsce

MS: seems the best thing to do at this time is advise the chairs about
this and ask for a quicker response

RS: Moz has indicated that they want to implement this

MS: this is important and significant info that needs to be brought
forward

<richardschwerdtfe> The two defects are:

<richardschwerdtfe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13176

<richardschwerdtfe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13181

MS: do think next step is to get on HTML WG call today

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-html-a11y-minutes.html

MS: Please do include the new info re: Moz's desire to implement

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13391

<MikeSmith> ScrollElementIntoView

RS: discussed this with Jonas. If we implement this it gets applied to
layout manager. So this can be closed

MS, this is what we need/want?

RS: yes

MS will follow with chairs on the other 2 bugs today

RS: really need Maciej to look at the CP Rich has authored

MS: will bring up those 3 things on today's call
meta@name=generator alt-text CP (Steve)

<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: the situation with the meta generator is not
really the case. I am agreeing it is OK to have images without ALT

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: Reading Steve's Proposal ...

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I don' t think that is explicitly what Steve is
saying

<janina>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_n
ot_make_missing_alt_conforming

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: This is a serious issue as every CMS is generating
a name value into their templates

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: ... breaking images with alt images is being
conformant

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: role="presentation" is acceptable

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: If you break this it is a free for all as the
validators and meta generators would not be testing for alt text

<richardschwerdtfe> Mike: The decision on the call should be whether we
want to proceed with this change proposal

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: I am not sure if you are responding .... Are
there still questions. If you and John are looking at this differently
then we have a problem. We can't ask for task level support until this is
respolved.

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: I did re-read it

<richardschwerdtfe> judy: I am proposing that we take it back into the sub
team

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: OK

<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: JF

<richardschwerdtfe> ye
review bugzilla a11y-tf "needs info" bugs

<MikeSmith>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&keywords=a11ytf&
bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=NEEDSINFO

MS: these are important because nothing will change until we (or an
individual) takes some action

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7721

MC: propose that the most important ones are those assigned to hixie

MS: there has been no discussion on this in over a year

last year hixie made significant changes to the D n D section

<MichaelC> actually, the ones that *are* assigned to Ian are most
important for us to look at because nobody is currently doing so

MS: asked Gez to re-review to see if the issues were addressed. Propose to
close this with a comment

MC: assigned another D n D bug to Gez as well. agree this is stale but we
need to be careful

MS: looking at the ones that MC suggested we prioritize

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8645

MS: there are some specific questions there, so an action is to ensure
specific responses are provided
 ... any volunteers?
 ... 2 specific questions asked

[MS reviewing the bug]

MS: this seems that this should be taken up by text team

JB: will bring it up on next call

MS: action on text team

MC: need a deligate

RS: label or aria-labeledby can also do the same thing

JB: will review and bring back to this group next week

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8885

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8644

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/66

<MikeSmith> action-66?

MS: given that Gez raised this, it would be good if he responded

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/90

<MikeSmith> action-90?

MS: note that 2 actions arose from this
 ... with trackbot down, cannot follow up on these actions at this time
 ... with only 5 minutes left, perhaps a quick review to highlight bigger
issues
 ... we have 3 open bugs around ARIA integration, but we need to go though

unlikely that MS can provide the required info

although first one seems to be mostly editorial in nature

MC: can assign to me

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11891

MS: OK, sound good

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11893

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to mention chairs' response about requests
from re-prioritizing of bugs

MS: these seem mostly editorial on nature. Hixie was something to point to
 ... we really need to focus on this list next week

we only got through about half
Summary of Action Items
 [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 21:22:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:47 GMT