See also: IRC log
Marco, unfortunately the UK and France numbers only accept 2 connections each at a given time. If someone else has taken the slots, nobody else can use them.
They keep saying they're going to fix that but I haven't heard about any progress.
<Marco_Ranon> Thanks Michael. I know. I can't dial the US number from the office though
<Marco_Ranon> Is it OK if I stay on IRC only?
Can you use Skype?
<Marco_Ranon> It's blocked.
i.e., if we switch to that instead of Zakim.
I guess we'll do our best
<Marco_Ranon> i can try to see if I have a mobile broadband.
Marco, if we do the meeting a bit later, can you do it Skype from home?
<Marco_Ranon> Sorry to ba a pain... I've just moved house and have no broadband yet...
ok, we'll try to mirror IRC well so you can follow and contribute
<Marco_Ranon> i didn't know.
Suggestion to have Martin formally lead this sub-group - set agenda, chair calls, implement decisions in bugzilla. Is this proposal ok?
<Marco_Ranon> OK with me.
will need fallback lead when unavailable
RESOLUTION: Martin is lead of the bug triage sub-group
<Marco_Ranon> Martin is more familiar with procedures and bugzilla than I am.
Deadline for new bugs to be considered before LC is 1 October 2010
all bugs filed before that date will be processed
bugs filed after that date will be queued up for later processing, may ultimately get processed before HTML finalized but no guarantee
this means any major accessibility issues need to be filed by then
Janina, Mike, and Michael discussed that we probably need to file bugs for drag&drop and keyboard access
plan to focus on that this week
not sure there's direct impact on bug triage group since we're dealing with existing bugs
the deadline that affect us is 22 January 2011, last date to request escalation of bugs into formal protest
bug triage subteam must pay close attention to this
as this is a central aspect of our work
next major deadline is 23 February 2011, need change proposals for all escalated issues
could impact bug triage sub-team, but may be more in the larger TF
so these are the deadlines we work under right now
it may be that after these, bug triage sub-team can disband, at least until another bug processing opportunity arises
<Marco_Ranon> basically we have two weeks to go through or list of bugs?
clarification: bugs filed after 1 October 2010 will handled as Last Call comments, when that stage is arrived at
we will probably need to reband at that point to process comments at that time
we have two weeks to file new bugs
we have 3 months to process the entire set of bugs on our plate
until 22 January 2011
Martin and Michael discussed last week
any new input into that for now?
<Marco_Ranon> Nothing to comment on Joshue bugs you discussed last week. I saw the emails from both MC and MK last week.
8674, proposal is to mark verified wontfix
<Marco_Ranon> ok. sorry.yes. no objections
8681, proposal is to close (not accessibility)
<Marco_Ranon> I agree
TF previously indicated it would provide further info (Feb 2010)
now we'd be saying "never mind"
<Marco_Ranon> i just don't see where it could be an accessibility issue
ok, accepting proposed disposition
8754, proposal is to accept editor response
in May we wanted Gez to do a change proposal
though this might have been a bug that originated with Cynthia
<Marco_Ranon> Personally, I don't think that having modern UAs allowing to zoom is an excuse to ignore this problem. I often resize text only and in RNIB we do check for text only resizing to work correctly
me too, I'm worried that there may be a general issue, even if the particular one in the bug isn't one
not clear if it's a content language issue, or a user agent issue
we wouldn't want override of explicitly author-set overflow:hidden though
(it's an accessibility problem the author has chosen to go into, perhaps with good reason)
the base issue may be one of clipping when zooming
<Marco_Ranon> i think it should be down to the UA to render the text even if visually hidden
<Marco_Ranon> the Assistive technology more than the UA
think we should go ahead and close this bug, but alert UAAG WG that they should document the larger issue in Implementing UAAG 2.0
<Marco_Ranon> sound sensible to me
because it's not a problem in current *modern* browsers, but we we wouldn't want a new browser to re-introduce the problem
<scribe> ACTION: cooper to refer bug 8754 to UAWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action01]
8827 and 8872, both seem related to ISSUE-31
<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Escalating_a_Bug_to_an_Issue says TrackerRequest should be added before a bug is escalated to an issue
seems like it should have the trackerissue keyword just to confirm this
adding TrackerIssue keyword to 8827, leaving 8872 alone
<kliehm> Next. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
9061, proposal is to reopen because open for counter-proposals
but process is not to reopen bugs that have been escalated
maybe we should just add a comment that bug triage sub-team understands this is open for counter-proposals and needs no further tracking at TF level at this time
9098, proposal to close as is
<Marco_Ranon> i agree in principle. I think @src should be essential part of IMG, and @alt the accessible alternative. But as MC said, i wouldn't be useful to argue this point
<Marco_Ranon> Joshue, I've been trying for an hour...
<Joshue> ok, IRC it is!
we're about to wrap up
in a bug or two
<Joshue> I thought it starts at 5?
<Joshue> Oh, no!
<Joshue> I got the time wrong didn't I :-(
<Joshue> Sorry guys..
:( yeah, it's 4pm IST
<Joshue> Ok, I'll amend /both/ my calenders for next time..
<Joshue> Some thoughts for the record..
<Joshue> For http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9212
<Joshue> Am unsure, it seems to be spanning two use cases. 1) Where the user creates alternate text for individual images 2) Batch processing. I am not convinced that both issues are being dealt with here, and agree with Lauras initial concerns.
<Joshue> Josh: I haven?t parsed this bug.
<Joshue> Bug 9061 - allow image maps on the canvas element. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
<Joshue> This bug relates to the ?how are we gonna make canvas accessible? discussion. Have we a concensus on this issue right now? Or at least have we decided which routes to not go down?
we think 9098 should just be added as a reference from ISSUE-31
<Joshue> Ok, if nested menus that provide this functionality
<Joshue> Thats fine..
<Joshue> For 8681, fine close it.
<Joshue> Bug 8754: Overflow when text is resized
<Joshue> Josh: Yes, agree with the resolution, accept and close.
<Joshue> Does 8827 need the keyword TrackerIssue? Yes. I think this is still an issue.
<Joshue> I have stuff here relating to 'my' bugs that I sent to the PF list, will I post them here?
<Joshue> Bug 9437 - change ARIA section title and add extra text about use of ARIA.[
we went through them last week, though had question on one
<Joshue> ok, which one?
<Joshue> Sorry I couldn't make last week, I was travelleing to Sweden.
hang on, we're trying to go through these one at a time
still on 9098
<Joshue> Re: 9212 The suggestion is to change the 'generated' mechanism - comes from a worry that authors will abuse it and not bother to generate alternate text for individual images when doing bulk uploads etc, and that the current spec allows them to do this. Hixie then claims that the current spec trusts that authors wouldn't abuse the current model (as a matter of pride). He does make a good point about using current 'batch' tools to push large amounts of conten
<Joshue> Re: 9212 Are there APIs that can detect the tool being used and therefore provide a document level generator mechanism, when suitable and an element level mechanism otherwise? To me it seems that whatever is the most prevalent use case should be the default, which I suggest is the more granular method - so HTML 5 should support Element Level generator mechanism by default.
<Joshue> my 2 cents..
Josh, would you mind adding those comments to the bug as a clarification?
<Joshue> Yup, will do that now.
we don't see any further action to take at this point because it's already escalated
Thx. It turns out this is the one from last week we weren't sure about.
<Joshue> ok, sin e.
<Joshue> Sorry, outburst of Gaeilge.
<Joshue> Ok, I'll take a few more bugs Michael.
There are homework assignments from http://www.w3.org/2010/08/31-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#item01 to do if they're not done yet
also looking at new homework for this week
<Marco_Ranon> I went through my list for this week. Most The of them are about ARIA mapping. Steve Faulkner addressed them in his email to Maciej on 10 September 2010: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0285.html
<kliehm> In particular, Joshue could you address http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9871
<Joshue> Will do Martin.
Suggest we look at NEEDSINFO bugs for this coming week
some of these are already assigned to someone to provide the info, we just need to ping
<Joshue> So all on this list are NEEDSINFO bugs?
assigning 2 each, need to try to provide the actual info as part of the homework
some may be easy, some not
Martin to take 8622 and 8645
Marco to take 8715 and 8722
Josh to take 8740 and 8885
<Joshue> Yeah, some are mammoth. @alt, ARIA and A11y API mappings etc
Michael to take 10252 and 10483
we may not be able to provide all the needed info
but let's make a good faith effort to try as part of the homework
(plus catching up on last week's homework)
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to ping owners of bugs in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=NEEDSINFO to make sure they're working on them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html#action02]
<Joshue> For the record, I don't have much more to add on the Bugs I got, so..
do you want to trade? or get help from colleagues, or tweet a question and see what comes up?
Martin sends regrets
<Joshue> Fine with me
<Marco_Ranon> fine with me too
<Marco_Ranon> thanks. i am better now
<Joshue> So just to be clear, are we looking for more info on these bugs, or to state proposals?
next meeting will take place as usual: Tuesday 21 September at 15:00 UTC 17:00 CEST 16:00 BST / IST 11:00 EDT
prepare proposals if possible, though don't add to the bug itself
<Joshue> Ok, fine.
hopefully better telephony
<Marco_Ranon> i'll have a look. i might be able to work from home
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/rtsagent, set logs world-visible// No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: MichaelC Inferring Scribes: MichaelC Default Present: +49.179.103.aaaa, kliehm, Michael_Cooper, +49.699.435.aabb Present: Marco_Ranon Michael_Cooper kliehm Joshue_O_Connor Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0385.html Got date from IRC log name: 14 Sep 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-a11y-bugs-minutes.html People with action items: cooper michael WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]