WAI HTML-A11y Bug Triage weekly meeting

10 Jan 2012

See also: IRC log


David_MacDonald, Léonie_Watson, Hans_Hillen, Joshue_O_Connor, Everett_Zufelt, Michael_Cooper
Léonie Watson
Hans Hillen, hhillen


<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> 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> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&keywords=a11ytf&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=WONTFIX


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


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


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


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


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


LW: I don't think this is one we need to escalate


MC: I agree with cynthia but I don't think this is a high priority
... We're not escalating this one


MC: I'll reopen it, and assign it to Cynthia


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


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 scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/10 17:09:50 $

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: 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]