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

Re: aged bugs

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:33:11 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa1001040833k3cfc8c1cmedbadc456129915a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote [1]:

> why were some bugs
> downgraded, and others not? There was no reason given, and the effort
> seemed to be arbitrary. We should discouraging any form of arbitrary
> behavior.

The following accessibility bugs were recently downgraded from P2 to
P3 without explanation:

Bug 8171: Implement the text alternatives proposal from WAI
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8171
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2009Dec/0081.html

Bug 8187: Section 4.8.7 on video makes no reference to audio description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8187
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2009Dec/0079.html

Bug 8525: Authoring Tools are exempt from using elements only for
their specified purpose
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8525
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0000.html

The following accessibility bugs were recently downgraded from P2 to
P3 with explanation:

Bug 7721: Drag and Drop is not keyboard accessible
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7721
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2009Dec/0080.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7721#c10

Bug 5758: insufficient accessibility fallback for <audio> or <video>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5758
Status: Partially Accepted
Change Description: none at this time
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2009Dec/0078.html

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0090.html

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe this reply is still applicable:
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0331.html>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>> There are now bugs, including some that I've filed, that are over two
>>> months old. The only action taken on them was their priority was
>>> demoted, from the standard P2 to P3. Why they were demoted is unknown
>>> -- it was a seemingly arbitrary move.
>>>
>>> The HTML5 specification cannot progress with unaddressed bugs. If the
>>> sole HTML5 author has too much work, this group needs to consider
>>> opening the specification to other editors.
>>>
>>> Regardless, we need to consider a process where bugs that are left
>>> beyond a certain point either have their priority moved up, or are
>>> converted to issues so that the entire group can provide a solution to
>>> the bug. I actually favor the latter -- if the bugs are too complex to
>>> handle simply, with edits, then they should be resolved by the group.
>>>
>>> Shelley
>>>
>>
>>
>
> But this is not a procedure, nor a governing principle.
>
> We need consistency in this effort. For instance, why were some bugs
> downgraded, and others not? There was no reason given, and the effort
> seemed to be arbitrary. We should discouraging any form of arbitrary
> behavior.
>
> In addition, we should not be encouraging behavior that results in
> bugs being ignored for two months, and then one person seemingly
> addresses 200+ bugs in one week.
>
> This is not an efficient process, nor is it one that focuses on
> quality rather than quantity of effort.
>
> I would also like the other two co-chairs to respond to my concerns.
>
> Shelley

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 16:33:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC