- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:33:11 -0600
- 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