W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > January 2012

HTML-A11y Task Force Minutes for 5 January

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:47:32 -0500
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120105174732.GC12037@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference on 4 January 2012
are provided in hypertext at
http://www.w3.org/2012/01/05-html-a11y-minutes.html and reproduced in
text following.


                                                           - DRAFT -

                                          HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

05 Jan 2012


   See also: IRC log


          Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly

          Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon




     * Topics
         1. status re deadlines
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 05 January 2012

   <MikeSmith> hmm

   <scribe> scribe: janina

status re deadlines

   ms: Good starting point might be recap from Bug Triage

   cs: Also have an agendum--Have sent in bug update

   <MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jan/0002.html

   mc: Looked at needsinfo bugs, still need relevant info
   ... Categorized the won'tfix bugs (approx 80) into 12 categories
   ... Each category contains related bugs

   <MikeSmith> detailed bugs summary from Cynthia on Dec 23

   mc: Some issues are closed, wondering whether to reopen? or create new issue?
   ... Currently believe there might be 8 to 10 issues to escalate

   rs: Concern about how decisions reached can be vacated under WG process

   js: Think it's worth discussing, but orthagonal to current discussion

   ms: We were discussing existing, unescalated bugs, whether we need to escalate in order to make January 15 deadline

   cs: Any we can review now?

   mc: No.

   js: Are we OK on work load?

   mc: Yes on the won'tfix set that we categorized
   ... Unsure about the needsinfo
   ... Approx 30-40 needsinfo ones
   ... Also some marked fixed which we haven't verified, and may not be able to verify, or verify that we agree with the

   <MichaelC> Bugs as needsinfo

   <MichaelC> Bugs marked won't fix

   ms: Was asking about the categorizations ...

   <MichaelC> Bugs marked as fixed

   <MichaelC> Potential issues to escalate:

   <MichaelC> Text alternatives

   <MichaelC> ARIA mapping

   <MichaelC> Canvas

   <MichaelC> Conformance

   <MichaelC> Media

   <MichaelC> Keyboard Access

   <MichaelC> Tooltip vs title

   <MichaelC> Contenteditable

   <MichaelC> Drag and Drop

   <MichaelC> ... and some misc ones that might be new issues

   ms: I posted a comment re drag and drop, and want to note that I haven't seen any new info relating to keyboard issues
   on it.
   ... We went around on this a year ago
   ... Gez re-reviewed following the editor's changes approx November 2010, and found no remaining issues
   ... Looking through everything since, I see nothing new to identify problem

   jf: I think Everett filed comments and bugs around this recently

   mc: I think there were some drag and drop bugs we verified in December.
   ... We're triagging for a closer look

   ms: Important to identify what specific issues are if we go forward with a new dnd bug
   ... Possible to get Gez on this briefly?

   mc: Both Gez and Everett participate in Bug Triage, Everett more

   ms: Seems we're OK on bugs

   rs: So, going back to the issue I've raised
   ... Concerned W3C doesn't have control of this spec, because lacking process

   sf: Some of the needsinfo have to do with adding role attrib
   ... Seems these should be a priority

   mc: won'tfix we'll be covering on Tuesday, needsinfo we've assigned

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

   mc: Our expectation is to create tracker items for escalated issues, then associated parts of particular bugs to those
   ... So, the TF will be following the tracker issues
   ... So, for ARIA, perhaps something like "Make sure ARIA is completely mapped"

   sf: Agree, but also have the concern that we follow process and not be at risk for changes that come out of the blue

   rs: Because if our time and resolutions are at risk, we're wasting our time here

   cs: Leonie sent me needsinfo, and I also looked at any I had previously touched

   <MichaelC> Spec review wiki page

   <cyns> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Spec_Review/All

   <cyns> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13512

   cs: First one I thought needed discussion

   mc: We triagged this as a feature request

   cs: Pretty significant issue for web apps, don't see it as a feature request, think it's underspecified
   ... If moving to another spec, that's fine
   ... AT's have hacked around this, but a resolution would be better

   mc: Maybe that we could agree this should be worked on in Web Apps

   cs: Don't feel qualified to say that

   ms: Willing to have an opinion, but don't know we have a consensus

   cs: Who does Anna speak for on this?

   ms: Nobody speaks for the wg in bugzilla
   ... So, as an editorial assistant, he speaks on behalf of the editor on this

   cs: Is there wg consensus on this?

   js: Should we ask for wg consensus on this?

   ms: As of now this is outside of html

   mc: So our interest may be to insure there's a normative ref to DOM in the html specs

   cs: OK. Will move bug to Web Apps
   ... OK, next ... 13659

   <cyns> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13659

   cs: duplicate of 13599
   ... not really a11y, inclined to drop from our radar
   ... 13662
   ... I suggest we verify


   cs: 13656

   <cyns> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13656

   cs: Anyone have examples?
   ... Help appreciated on this

   ms: Suggest an email on list for this one

   mc: Also possibly John Gunderson

   cs: 13528
   ... I verify


   cs: 13531

   <cyns> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13531

   cs: there are examples in the spec that aren't best practice, though editor doesn't agree
   ... It's allowed, but not the best example

   sf: Did a study of this recently, and there are issues

   <Stevef> http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/form-labels.html

   ms: Meta question here is is this something to escalate to an issue?
   ... Perhaps to update the bug with comments

   sf: Basically, this doesn't work with crome and safari

   js: What about the invalids?

   mc: I see about 15, and I'll make sure triage looks at them

   ms: Suggest Triage should also look at Cynthia's remaining items, about 7 more bugs
   ... So let's talk about the issue Rich raised
   ... Agree with Janina that this isn't specifically a TF issue, but something that should be discussed in the WG
   ... My concern is whether the chairs even have control over the W3C spec
   ... Well, they do about the WG process
   ... Clearly, the HTML-WG is in many ways different from other W3C
   ... The chairs are making decisions, and have made a decision in this case

   rs: Based on their assessment that browsers would not implement, but we're not in CR
   ... It's premature to use that as a yardstick

   ms: PLH also involved in the discussion on this as was I

   RS: I'm not wed to the API we created, ncesarrily
   ... people are using canvas to do text
   ... seems their decision is based on issues that have persisted, and we have no a11y support or the ability,

   ms: reminds that our process is edit and then discuss
   ... pointing out the separate canvas spec

   rs: but the changes are not tracking

   <Stevef> HTML Canvas 2D Context Extensions

   <Stevef> http://dev.w3.org/html5/canvas-extensions/Overview.html

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:47:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:25 UTC