- 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>
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. W3C - DRAFT - HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 05 Jan 2012 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly Regrets Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon Chair Mike_Smith Scribe janina Contents * 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 fix <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 [agreement] 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 [agreement] 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 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net 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