HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

19 Jan 2012

See also: IRC log


Janina_Sajka, Mike_Smith, Judy_Brewer, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Cotton, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, John_Foliot, Cynthia_Shelley, Léonie_Watson, Steve_Faulkner


<trackbot> Date: 19 January 2012

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: LeonieW

<paulc> Zakin, [Microsoft] has paulc

<scribe> scribenick: LeonieW

JS: Two things to do. Figure out if we got everything we wanted, and to figure out our next steps before Feb 11th.
... Thank you to Paul for forwarding escalations and other information through to the TF list.
... Does anyone have a direct concern about any issues?

JB: Thank you also to Paul for the update on the longdesc issue.

PC: Judy is referring to a thread open on the chair's list.
... If the TF has a preferred order that issues are processed in, information on how or why an issue should be prioritised would be helpful.

SF: Only re-opened requests have to be provided by 11th Feb. Most change proposals are due by 18th Feb.

<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html

PC: Most are due on the 15th or 16th. The chairs were being conservative, and considerate to the TF at the same time.
... We did decide to stick to the 11th for re-opned requests.

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Jan/0022.html

PC: We sent a personal reminder to people who have re-opned requests without change proposals.
... Job 1 is to figure out who, and when.

JS: We need our wiki updated with these new issues. Could someone take that on?

LW: If someone can let me know what and where, I don't mind.

RS: Paul, were the chairs able to review the proposal for the baseline?

PC: I'll be frank, no. It rings a bell though. Let me check a moment.

JS: Lets walk through the issues one by one and identify a primary stakeholder.

Issue 193

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-193

<paulc> Re ISSUE-131 - see my email to the TF in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jan/0161.html

SF: There is an example in the spec that advocates a CSS technique that causes problems for keyboard only users in relation to visible focus.

<paulc> ISSUE-131 is open and there is a pending call for change proposals.

Issue 194

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-194

JF: There is no way to link a transcript with an audio or video element.
... I can write the change proposal for this. I'll ping Silvia, as she filed the bug originally.

Issue 199

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-199

MC: This is the omnibus escalation that encompasses all ARIA bugs.
... We took a representative bug and escalated it, then tied similar smaller bugs into it.

<paulc> See http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-199 which lists the other bugs

RS: How does one write a change proposal for this? Was the plan for multiple proposals?
... What's the time frame for proposals?

PC: Until 16th Feb.

JS: Do we need to reconstitute the ARIA mapping sub team?

<paulc> I don't understand the statement "the Editor is not responding".

SF: Is it worth us providing the information needed for these bugs, and asking him to write something?

MC: No, it's probably better for us to write something.

<MikeSmith> for the record, I believe it was a mistake to escalate those issues at this point

SF: We hadn't responded to the needs info request. They're important for HTML5 now, not just down the track.

<MikeSmith> in general, I think it's a mistake to prematurely escalate any issues until we have clearly reached a point of disagreement with an editor

<Stevef> ak stevef

<janina> ack st ack pau

<MikeSmith> the escalation path was intended for not being used until we had reached an impasse -- that is, when it was clear the we could not get agreement between the editor and a commenter

PC: The bugs here are linked because I recommended to the TF that they should be. If they need to be split at any point for whatever reason, you should let me know.

SF: What happens if we de-escalate them? Does that move them out of LC bugs?

<MikeSmith> what we are doing by escalating them is cutting off the normal process of attempting to reach agreement in a reasonable way and instead imposing months of additional change-proposal-writing and process overhead on ourselves and the group and the chairs

PC: The chairs are always willing to see bugs closed based on consensus. The editor has told us he's not working on LC bugs at the moment.

<MikeSmith> despite him having said that, he has been resolving LC bugs

<MikeSmith> we are now down to 35 LC bugs

<MikeSmith> and Hixie is continuing to work on them

PC: If you don't escalate them and don't get agreement with the editor, they will be moved into the next LC or to a later draft of the spec.

SF: We can still provide further information to the editor, or we can go further and provide the change proposal.

JS: Suggest a meeting is the sensible next step.

SF: Mike, what do you suggest?

MS: Suggest we continue to get these bugs resolved. In particular the bug about lexical processing rules in ARIA. Hixie couldn't do anythig further, he was waiting for information.

SF: If we de-escalate them, can we later re-escalate them?

PC: No, that date has passed.

JS: Isn't this substantively the same thing?

CS: If there's information to be provided, let's provide it.

RS: Paul, what is the response time after a change proposal has been submitted?

PC: As soon as the change proposal deadline passes, there will be a counter proposal invitation.
... After 15th and 16th Feb, there will be a month for counter proposals to be submitted.

RS: That timetable might be difficult.

PC: The timetable has been published for some while now.

JF: Is it reasonable to presume that we could request an extension to the timeline?

PC: No idea how the chairs would respond.

JF: So would it be unreasonable to request?

PC: If you want to do that, you should go ahead. I can't offer an opinion.

Issue 200

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-200

MC: Not sure this is a11y related.

JS: Not for us to worry about.

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-201

Issue 201

RS: Frank was looking into this one.

CS: He is aware of it, but it's not his first priority right now.

RS: We can help him write it up.
... I'm trying to get Ian some use cases to address deficiencies relating to carat and fallback etc.

Issue 202

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-202

JS: One for the text sub team.

JB: We can discuss on the text call.

Issue 203

<MichaelC> HTML-ISSUE-203

JF: This is dependent on the outcome of issue 30 (longdesc).
... Therefore not sure how to proceed on this one.

PC: You should raise up that issue 30 needs to be processed in a timely way before issue 203 can be addressed.

<paulc> ISSUE-131 email:

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jan/0161.html

PC: Earlier we spoke about issue 131. I've pasted the response in channel.

<paulc> quit

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/19 17:06:10 $

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: LeonieW
Inferring ScribeNick: LeonieW
Found ScribeNick: LeonieW
Present: Janina_Sajka Mike_Smith Judy_Brewer Michael_Cooper Paul_Cotton Rich_Schwerdtfeger John_Foliot Cynthia_Shelley Léonie_Watson Steve_Faulkner
Found Date: 19 Jan 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]