See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011
<scribe> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<scribe> scribenick: JF
<paulc> What is the phone number for the TF meeting?
MS: waiting on Rich, as we need to follow up on some Canvas items
<paulc> I am having audio/mute problems.
also want to look at CP for meta-generator issue
finally want to review bugs in bugzilla tagged needs into
and if time allows others as well
JB: we met this week. John is about to release a response to Jonas this week
discussed what if anything to do about matt's CP
Janina will be working on that, witing on John's response to be released
as some of her response would be pointers to comments in John's response
re: summary, Josh has updated his response a few times based on feedback
Laura and others still had some concerns re: use-case gaps
but laura responded today and so awaiting follow through there
text sub-group supports Steve's work on Metagenerator
there is a new concerns around the generated content issues that emerged from the review process
but is a new issue that requires new exploration before something further can be done
MS: we *do* have the metagenerator issue on today's agenda
JB if questions do come up having Steve available is good
MS: next, media sub team?
JB: they have not been meeting of late, but are planning on reconvening
MS: yes, seems everything is
under control there
... Cyns, any addition s around ARIA mapping of late?
Cyns: No
JB: looking to possibly move the text meeting time from Monday to Tuesday. Judy will be checking and will advise via the list
MS: is this to accomodate schedules?
JB: yes
MS: we also have the bug triage team. we will be looking at this in depth later on the call
MC: main thing is we have finished going through the whole list
we found some that were on the line, and have pointed them to the sub-teams
others appeared fixed, but we are still watching them
nest task is to look at the prioritization of the bugs in bugzilla
JS: was re-reading the current decision policy. Noted some points around escaaltion issues
are we aware of that
MC: we are aware, and Mike Smith has discussed with chairs - will approach on a case-by-case basis
JS: I am reading that if the editor puts in a WONTFIX then the clock starts ticking
MC: that does not seem to be what the Chairs timeline states
MS: yes, we should look at that now
<paulc> I believe the last escalation date is in Jan 2012
don't beleive there is any deadline set if moved to WONTFIX, unless there has been some change to the Decision policy
<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
<paulc> I agree with Michael Cooper.
<paulc> Jan 14 is the key date.
MC: my reading is next deadline is Jan. 14th for cutoof
JS: refer to Section 5
[folks reviewing]
<MikeSmith_> Zakim, call Mike
<paulc> What document is Janina reviewing?
<MikeSmith_> Zakim, call Mike
JB: Paul is noting that he agrees with MC
JS: perhaps I should be putting this into an email
<paulc> Just give us the URL of the document - the decision-policy.html has no "section 5"
JB: Just want to be sure that we are not looking at an oldre version of the Decision polidy
<paulc> See http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html
MC: I am looking at both versions (V1 & V2) and not seeing any dates in either
<janina> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html
JS: I will come back with this, as it did jump out at me
will review and readdress with a more targeted question
<MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
<MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike-goog
<paulc> Schedule is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html
<paulc> - Jan 14, 2012 - cutoff for escalating bugs for Last Call consideration - all Tracker Issues in Tracker, calls for proposal issued by this date
<paulc> Yes, mjs is back
RS: will likely need some advice here. Is Maciej back from vacation
I need Macieij to review the focus-ring /clikcable regions
proposal. the question is
Sam asked if Rich wants to escalate this
but with vacation schedules there has been slow progresss
there is another bug around clickable regions
Ian dismissed it but likely just needs more infor
do we need to escalate that?
MS: not really sure
RS: Rich is getting conflicting questions
there is a defect - essentially hit-testing on canvas
Ian closed it, but it's not sufficient
it's not, explained to Ian and it was reopened, then same responded with the Q- do you want to escalate this?
JB: this seems like a similar
issue we had on the text team call as well
... if we risk a repeated open/close go 'round then perhaps we
should escalate
MS: hixie already clsed this, but then Rich responded with further clarrification, but hixie has not yet responded
so not sure if we need to act yet
MS: My understanding of the process is that we have the right to take the WONTFIX response and then escalate it
RS: I reopened it, should I escalate it?
MS: you are the one to make the call there
the criteria is whether you have a chance of changing hixie's mind or not
in this case, unsure
MS: but you do not have to wait to hear from him to escalate it however
If that is the case, revert it back to the editor's WONTFIX status and then tag with Issue Tracker
RS: that seems odd to do
MS: it is just you reverting it back to the original state of the response from the Editor
the other thing is that we can raise the priority of thie bug in hixies queue
that might be a better way to move this forward
ask the chairs to raise the priority
RS: there is that one, and there is another one around binding mouse-events
I have responded to hixie's request for more info, but have not heard from hixie
Sam asked if Rich wanted to escalate that one too, but there has been no responsce
MS: seems the best thing to do at this time is advise the chairs about this and ask for a quicker response
RS: Moz has indicated that they want to implement this
MS: this is important and significant info that needs to be brought forward
<richardschwerdtfe> The two defects are:
<richardschwerdtfe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13176
<richardschwerdtfe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13181
MS: do think next step is to get on HTML WG call today
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-html-a11y-minutes.html
MS: Please do include the new info re: Moz's desire to implement
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13391
<MikeSmith> ScrollElementIntoView
RS: discussed this with Jonas. If we implement this it gets applied to layout manager. So this can be closed
MS, this is what we need/want?
RS: yes
MS will follow with chairs on the other 2 bugs today
RS: really need Maciej to look at the CP Rich has authored
MS: will bring up those 3 things on today's call
<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich
<richardschwerdtfe> janina: the situation with the meta generator is not really the case. I am agreeing it is OK to have images without ALT
<richardschwerdtfe> janina: Reading Steve's Proposal ...
<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I don' t think that is explicitly what Steve is saying
<richardschwerdtfe> JF: This is a serious issue as every CMS is generating a name value into their templates
<richardschwerdtfe> JF: ... breaking images with alt images is being conformant
<richardschwerdtfe> JF: role="presentation" is acceptable
<richardschwerdtfe> JF: If you break this it is a free for all as the validators and meta generators would not be testing for alt text
<richardschwerdtfe> Mike: The decision on the call should be whether we want to proceed with this change proposal
<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: I am not sure if you are responding .... Are there still questions. If you and John are looking at this differently then we have a problem. We can't ask for task level support until this is respolved.
<richardschwerdtfe> janina: I did re-read it
<richardschwerdtfe> judy: I am proposing that we take it back into the sub team
<richardschwerdtfe> janina: OK
<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: JF
<richardschwerdtfe> ye
MS: these are important because nothing will change until we (or an individual) takes some action
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7721
MC: propose that the most important ones are those assigned to hixie
MS: there has been no discussion on this in over a year
last year hixie made significant changes to the D n D section
<MichaelC> actually, the ones that *are* assigned to Ian are most important for us to look at because nobody is currently doing so
MS: asked Gez to re-review to see if the issues were addressed. Propose to close this with a comment
MC: assigned another D n D bug to Gez as well. agree this is stale but we need to be careful
MS: looking at the ones that MC suggested we prioritize
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8645
MS: there are some specific
questions there, so an action is to ensure specific responses
are provided
... any volunteers?
... 2 specific questions asked
[MS reviewing the bug]
MS: this seems that this should be taken up by text team
JB: will bring it up on next call
MS: action on text team
MC: need a deligate
RS: label or aria-labeledby can also do the same thing
JB: will review and bring back to this group next week
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8885
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8644
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/66
<MikeSmith> action-66?
MS: given that Gez raised this, it would be good if he responded
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/90
<MikeSmith> action-90?
MS: note that 2 actions arose
from this
... with trackbot down, cannot follow up on these actions at
this time
... with only 5 minutes left, perhaps a quick review to
highlight bigger issues
... we have 3 open bugs around ARIA integration, but we need to
go though
unlikely that MS can provide the required info
although first one seems to be mostly editorial in nature
MC: can assign to me
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11891
MS: OK, sound good
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11893
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to mention chairs' response about requests from re-prioritizing of bugs
MS: these seem mostly editorial
on nature. Hixie was something to point to
... we really need to focus on this list next week
we only got through about half
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) Succeeded: s/I am/Rich is/ Succeeded: s/those not assigned to hixie/those assigned to hixie/ Found ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: Rich Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Scribes: Rich, JF Default Present: John_Foliot, Mike, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly, paulc, MikeSmith, Rich_Schwerdtfeger Present: John_Foliot Mike Janina Michael_Cooper Judy Cynthia_Shelly paulc MikeSmith Rich_Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Laura_Carlson Marco_Ranon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Sep/0148.html Found Date: 29 Sep 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-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]