[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAI HTML-A11y Bug Triage weekly meeting
10 Jan 2012
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-a11y-bugs-irc
Attendees
Present
David_MacDonald, Léonie_Watson, Hans_Hillen,
Joshue_O_Connor, Everett_Zufelt, Michael_Cooper
Regrets
Chair
Léonie Watson
Scribe
Hans Hillen, hhillen
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Identify Scribe
2. [5]New bugs review
3. [6]Actions review
4. [7]Needs more info bugs
5. [8]Won't fix bugs
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<lwatson> agenda: this
<David> testing
<David> I'm here too
Identify Scribe
<lwatson> scribe: Hans Hillen
<hhillen> scribe: hhillen
New bugs review
LW: EZ, are there any new bugs?
EZ: There was one that might be related to a11y, but I'll look
into that one further
<lwatson>
[10]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15488
[10] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15488
Actions review
LW: Were there any actions from last week?
MC: We grouped wont fix bugs into tracker issue
Needs more info bugs
LW: I sent emails around xmas to people about their needs info
bugs
... Cynthia and Steve we responsive, haven't heard from the
rest
... I'll bring it up on Thursday's TF meeting
MC: The most important thing for me is to know is: what are the
tracker issues that we need by this Friday
... Text Alternatives, Keyboard access, ARIA mapping, Canvas,
Media would be the most important ones to get tracker issues
for
... Then there is conformance, Feature request, miscellaneous
... what we should do now is look at the remaining bugs and
determine do we want a tracker issue
LW: Can you remind be what 'creating a tracker issue' would
mean?
MC: It means that we're not happy with the resolution of the
bug and want to escalate it. In my mind the needs info ones
have the shakiest grounds to be escalated, because the
responsibility was with us. It's the wont fix ones that we're
on clear grounds for: the editor said "no" and we don't agree
with it.
... We also need to look at the 14 bugs with "invalid" status
Won't fix bugs
<MichaelC>
[11]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&
keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=WONTFIX
[11] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=WONTFIX
[12]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13429
[12] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13429
MC: We can say it looks like it's going through process or we
can say that we won't escalate it
JC: Is this political more than technical?
MC: It's more political. The more we escalate, there more we're
seen as a pain
... So we need to make sure to not escalate too many issues
... If we do escalate, we have to make sure we push the
solution
HH: It's more of a usability issue than an accessibility issue
MC: that sounds like we shouldn't escalate for now
[13]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13524
[13] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13524
MC: This seems to be the only drag & drop issue that we don't
know is ok. We think the htnl5 drag & drop is in order now, but
we didn't take this bug into account then
... I'm proposing not to escalate this as no one else has
talked about this issue, the original filer can escalate if
he/she wants to
[14]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10873
[14] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10873
MC: This one was filed by EZ
... We should have triage this as a feature request
... We should get feature requests in a requirements page
somewhere, but not escalate it because it's too late in the
process for that
... I do agree with the bug though, I would like a tooltip
attribute
EZ: I'm indifferent about which direction it goes, it's not a
really high priority, and some point this feature should be
added, but it doesn't have to be right now.
MC: The a11y community has never written up an html wish list
for html
... This could be the start of that
... Once we have that wish list, we could start to shop fro
those features
... If we like that idea we can start shopping it up, see where
we would house such a group and start recruiting. With that in
mind we can stop pursuing feature request bugs for immediate
escalation
... We also tagged about 7 bugs as conformance
LW: What was the condition for 'conformance'?
MC: Bugs about allowing or not allowing particular markup in
particular situations
LW: SO is it just a issue for the validator, or are there other
effects?
HH: THere could be other effects, if the browser decides not to
implement a non-conformant feature
[15]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9485
[15] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9485
MC: I don't want to escalate this one
EZ: HTML5 should take its guidance from WCAG, but it shouldn't
be tied to it
... It should be odd to create a dependence between the two,
wcag should only be used as guidance
[16]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10906
[16] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10906
MC: We can document this in the mapping guide, but it sounds to
me we don't support this bug
... I'll reopen this bug and move it to the HTML a11y api
component
... That means that this bug won't be dropped but it won't be
escalated either
[17]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13442
[17] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13442
LW: I don't think this is one we need to escalate
[18]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13548
[18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13548
MC: I agree with cynthia but I don't think this is a high
priority
... We're not escalating this one
[19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13561
[19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13561
MC: I'll reopen it, and assign it to Cynthia
[20]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13638
[20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13638
MC: We already decided we don't want to crow the spec to wcag
... or UAAG
LW: This one doesn't need escalation
MC: We could get a preamble for this
... We could create our own bug for it
... Wait, There is a link to UAAG already, so we don't have to
do this after all
[21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13639
[21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13639
MC: No need to escalate this
... That clears the wont fix bugs from last week
... We'll schedule an extra (last) meeting this thursday at 7PM
CET, to finish the remaining bugs
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
1.136 ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/10 17:09:50 $
__________________________________________________________
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Found Scribe: Hans Hillen
Found Scribe: hhillen
Inferring ScribeNick: hhillen
Scribes: Hans Hillen, hhillen
Default Present: David_MacDonald
Present: David_MacDonald Léonie_Watson Hans_Hillen Joshue_O_Connor Evere
tt_Zufelt Michael_Cooper
Got date from IRC log name: 10 Jan 2012
Guessing minutes URL: [25]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-a11y-bugs-minutes
.html
People with action items:
[25] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-a11y-bugs-minutes.html
[End of [26]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm