HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

05 Jan 2012


See also: IRC log


Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly
Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon


<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


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


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]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/05 17:45:10 $

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 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Default Present: Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly
Present: Janina_Sajka Michael_Cooper Mike Rich John_Foliot Steve_Faulkner Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets: Laura_Carlson Marco_Ranon
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jan/0012.html
Found Date: 05 Jan 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/05-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]