IRC log of aria-apg on 2016-02-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
17:55:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:57:32 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #aria-apg
17:57:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #aria-apg
17:57:58 [jamesn]
meeting: WAI-PF ARIA Authoring Practices Guide Taskforce
17:58:15 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make log world
17:58:47 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Continue review text of section "2.32 Tool Bar" in the keyboard interaction notes
17:58:47 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Review text of section 2.18 listbox
17:58:47 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Update pattern work assignments and status
17:59:01 [jamesn]
18:01:51 [annabbott]
annabbott has joined #aria-apg
18:03:06 [jamesn]
18:07:38 [jongund]
jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:08:40 [MichielBijl]
18:09:18 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minuteas
18:09:18 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minuteas', jamesn. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:09:21 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:09:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jamesn
18:09:25 [jongund]
present+ jongund
18:09:40 [jamesn]
present+ JamesNurthen
18:09:45 [MichielBijl]
scribe: MichielBijl
18:10:09 [annabbott]
present+ AnnAbbott
18:10:14 [jamesn]
present+ jemma
18:10:21 [jamesn]
present+ MattKing
18:10:36 [jamesn]
present+ MichielBijl
18:10:40 [jemma]
18:10:57 [jamesn]
rragent, make minutes
18:11:03 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:11:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jamesn
18:12:14 [MichielBijl]
zakim, next item
18:12:14 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Continue review text of section "2.32 Tool Bar" in the keyboard interaction notes" taken up [from jamesn]
18:13:53 [jemma]
"ungraceful shut down." ;-)
18:15:18 [annabbott]
present+ JonGunderson
18:15:50 [cpandhi]
cpandhi has joined #aria-apg
18:16:11 [annabbott]
present+ CharuPandhi
18:16:46 [jamesn]
18:17:19 [MichielBijl]
MK: Went to the description
18:17:21 [jamesn]
Rewrite description to be more inline with spec; remove compact visual form language.
18:17:21 [jamesn]
Delete references to menu/menubar.
18:17:21 [jamesn]
delete sentence about using role group for a bunch of toolbars.
18:17:21 [jamesn]
In keyboard interaction, remove:
18:17:22 [jamesn]
"Direction may need to be adjusted for Right to Left languages "
18:17:27 [MichielBijl]
MK: Left off at keyboard interaction
18:17:33 [MichielBijl]
MK: James do you want to review?
18:18:50 [MichielBijl]
MK: Any other changes that need to be logged?
18:18:56 [mck]
mck has joined #aria-apg
18:19:10 [MichielBijl]
JN: You can put any sort of controls in toolbars, correct?
18:19:34 [bgaraventa1979]
bgaraventa1979 has joined #aria-apg
18:19:49 [MichielBijl]
present+ BryanGaraventa
18:19:52 [bgaraventa1979]
present+ Bryan_Garaventa
18:19:59 [MichielBijl]
present- BryanGaraventa
18:20:22 [MichielBijl]
MK: Yes, that does mean you can put in inputs that capture left/right arrows.
18:21:19 [MichielBijl]
JN: Current advice to developers, a) do it, but make it so you can tab in/out of the input. b) make it its own toolbar
18:21:31 [MichielBijl]
s/make it/make the input/
18:22:41 [MichielBijl]
JN: Possibly a problem for AT switching navigation mode while tabbing between input/toolbar
18:22:59 [MichielBijl]
BG: What is the problem?
18:25:41 [MichielBijl]
MK: Application toolbars that don't allow for keyboard navigation are a real pain to use.
18:28:52 [MichielBijl]
MB: Is this a pattern seen on Windows? Mac doesn't do this for toolbars.
18:29:11 [MichielBijl]
JN/MK: OS X not designed for keyboard use.
18:31:02 [MichielBijl]
MK: we need to word smith this into the description: “some elements in the toolbar may consume left and right arrow keys”
18:32:04 [MichielBijl]
MK: What do people think of this note:
18:32:05 [MichielBijl]
provide a documented keystroke that allows users to move focus quickly to the tool bar from elsewhere within the web application, placing focus on a tool within the tool bar.
18:32:22 [MichielBijl]
MK: CKEdit uses F10 to move to editor toolbar.
18:33:11 [MichielBijl]
JN: Change to “should consider to provide…”
18:33:54 [MichielBijl]
JN: If there is a main toolbar, it is good to have a keystroke to move to that, but not if you have a gazillion toolbars.
18:34:27 [MichielBijl]
MK: Or move to toolbar to context dependent toolbar.
18:34:43 [MichielBijl]
s/to toolbar//
18:34:59 [MichielBijl]
*James typing loudly*
18:36:40 [MichielBijl]
MK: What to do with: There is debate concerning the treatment of disabled toolbar buttons -- should they be focusable or not?
18:36:54 [MichielBijl]
JN: Agree/disagree some of the time; depends.
18:37:22 [MichielBijl]
JN: Annoying if one button is enabled and 10 are disabled
18:37:23 [MichielBijl]
MK: Agree with James
18:37:32 [MichielBijl]
MK: What do others think?
18:38:12 [MichielBijl]
BG: I don't think they should be disabled
18:38:21 [MichielBijl]
18:40:37 [MichielBijl]
MK: We should remove the words “there is debate”
18:42:28 [MichielBijl]
MB: Can't we just remove everything except for “Disabled buttons are not focusable until they are enabled.”?
18:45:08 [MichielBijl]
JN: Don't think Ribbons are the right place to look for toolbars.
18:45:28 [MichielBijl]
JN: Look like menu's on the top level
18:47:13 [MichielBijl]
JN: Would like to see that our recommendation would be something like: not focusable by default, but there are specific cases where they should be.
18:47:30 [MichielBijl]
MK: Then we should include at least some examples of those specific cases.
18:47:55 [MichielBijl]
MK: Include the rational
18:48:03 [MichielBijl]
BG: And change buttons to elements?
18:48:07 [MichielBijl]
All: yes.
18:48:47 [Birkir]
Birkir has joined #aria-apg
18:49:02 [MichielBijl]
MK: In general disabled elements are not included in the focus sequence, however there maybe some circumstances where discoverability of a function is crucial.
18:49:16 [MichielBijl]
CP: Does it make sense to make them read only?
18:49:19 [jamesn]
"In general disabled elements are not included in the focus sequence but there may be some circumstances where discoverability of a function is crucial and an author may choose to include in the navigation sequence."
18:49:21 [MichielBijl]
MK: No.
18:50:41 [MichielBijl]
JN: You can't have read-only radiobuttons or checkboxes
18:51:12 [Birkir]
18:53:04 [MichielBijl]
MK: Delete middle two bullets under states and properties.
18:55:12 [MichielBijl]
AA: Remove line “too few or too many”
18:55:17 [MichielBijl]
*all agree*
18:55:41 [MichielBijl]
MK: Unsure about aria-label
18:55:50 [MichielBijl]
JN: Only if there is more than one.
18:56:00 [MichielBijl]
AA: Could have a visual label that labels something else
18:56:06 [MichielBijl]
MK: I've done that
18:56:53 [MichielBijl]
AA: aria-label if more than one toolbar, and if no visual label
18:57:09 [MichielBijl]
AA: and could do aria-labelledby if there is a visual label
18:57:21 [MichielBijl]
JN: Is it helpful for toolbars being labelled.
18:57:36 [MichielBijl]
MK: Depends on the buttons/elements inside being labelled
18:57:44 [MichielBijl]
MK: I find them helpful
18:57:58 [MichielBijl]
JN: So let's leave the recommendation in
18:59:13 [MichielBijl]
MB: You can still label the toolbar if there is only one; I label my nav's like main nav even if there is only one
18:59:16 [MichielBijl]
MK: Yeah
19:01:00 [jamesn]
MB: what do we do in other places about labelling
19:01:18 [jamesn]
JN: labelling techniques are the same everywhere
19:01:51 [jamesn]
AA: I don't think it hurts to call out aria-label or aria-labelledby
19:02:19 [jamesn]
MK: I don't think there is a referencable section on that
19:02:47 [jamesn]
Birkir: something about labelling widgets would be really useful
19:03:24 [jamesn]
Birkir - techically they could use title
19:03:28 [jamesn]
JN: yep
19:03:36 [jamesn]
MK: wouldn't recommend that
19:03:41 [jamesn]
JN: why
19:04:06 [MichielBijl]
JN: Why should I have to label it twice?
19:05:01 [Birkir]
title is a source of accessible name (the last fallback admittedly).
19:06:04 [MichielBijl]
MK: That's a worthy addressed
19:06:20 [MichielBijl]
s/worthy/worthy issue being/
19:06:34 [MichielBijl]
JN: It's like suggesting longdesc in our document
19:07:08 [MichielBijl]
JN: “warning: this is the last fallback!”
19:07:25 [MichielBijl]
MK: I would never put title as a best practice
19:07:42 [MichielBijl]
MK: We circle back around to thinking not recommending title
19:08:06 [MichielBijl]
MK: Should only be done by people totally in the know
19:08:47 [MichielBijl]
CP: Maybe makes sense if you know what you're doing
19:09:01 [MichielBijl]
AA: Title is not part of APG/ARIA, we can leave it out
19:09:13 [MichielBijl]
Birkir: good point
19:09:23 [jamesn]
19:09:37 [jemma]
I agree with annabbott about title
19:09:55 [MichielBijl]
zakim, next item
19:09:55 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review text of section 2.18 listbox" taken up [from jamesn]
19:09:56 [MichielBijl]
19:11:26 [MichielBijl]
MK: Have done some edits
19:12:14 [MichielBijl]
MK: ARIA doesn't include a definition of “static”
19:12:21 [MichielBijl]
MK: So I made up wording for it
19:12:35 [MichielBijl]
A listbox widget allows a user to select one or more items from a list of choices or options. A listbox that allows a single option to be chosen is a single-select listbox; one that allows multiple options to be selected is a multi-select listbox.
19:14:08 [MichielBijl]
JN: We have child stuff as the option
19:14:16 [MichielBijl]
19:14:27 [MichielBijl]
MK: Open that in a dialog
19:14:37 [MichielBijl]
JN: No you focus into the child option
19:15:04 [MichielBijl]
MK: You're going to have a screen reader issue
19:15:14 [MichielBijl]
MK: You can tab around in it, but content in it is invisible
19:15:26 [MichielBijl]
JN: No, if you go in it, you can arrow around in it.
19:15:36 [MichielBijl]
MK: Must not be contained in an option elements
19:15:40 [MichielBijl]
JN: Let me check that
19:15:50 [MichielBijl]
ack me
19:17:59 [MichielBijl]
MB: Should we drop “choices” from the first line?
19:18:31 [MichielBijl]
MK: Was an editorial thing
19:18:57 [MichielBijl]
AA: Think we can lose “choices”
19:19:05 [MichielBijl]
JN: Will make a bug
19:20:36 [MichielBijl]
*discussing the weather around the globe*
19:20:58 [MichielBijl]
MK: Conclusion: we will remove choices
19:26:01 [MichielBijl]
MB: Should everything after second sentence be a note?
19:26:16 [MichielBijl]
Birkir: the one that starts with “This is because?”
19:26:18 [MichielBijl]
MB: yes
19:26:38 [MichielBijl]
MB: Good information, but adds more text
19:27:16 [MichielBijl]
MK: Okay with removing it
19:27:48 [MichielBijl]
MK: Let's move to the third paragraph
19:28:27 [MichielBijl]
Birkir: explanation should be last
19:28:31 [MichielBijl]
MK: Good point
19:28:59 [MichielBijl]
MK: Instruction should be before explanantion
19:30:14 [MichielBijl]
MK: Let's move to last/fourth paragraph
19:30:25 [MichielBijl]
JN: Seems like a general problem
19:30:38 [MichielBijl]
JN: (not SR specific)
19:30:47 [MichielBijl]
MK: I found it important enough to include
19:31:18 [MichielBijl]
JN: I would argue you don't want repeated start strings for anyone
19:32:18 [jamesn]
19:32:24 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:32:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jamesn
19:35:10 [mck]
mck has left #aria-apg
19:38:07 [MichielBijl]
rrsagent, bugger off
19:38:07 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'bugger off', MichielBijl. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:38:20 [MichielBijl]
RRSAgent, bye
19:38:20 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items