See also: IRC log
<lwatson> agenda: this
<David> testing
<David> I'm here too
<lwatson> scribe: Hans Hillen
<hhillen> scribe: hhillen
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> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15488
LW: Were there any actions from last week?
MC: We grouped wont fix bugs into tracker issue
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13442
LW: I don't think this is one we need to escalate
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
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13561
MC: I'll reopen it, and assign it to Cynthia
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
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
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: 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 Everett_Zufelt Michael_Cooper Got date from IRC log name: 10 Jan 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-a11y-bugs-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]