get role=banner? 18:26:30 JN: Not sure 18:26:42 JN: This is written backwards 18:26:54 LW: Been battering Steve about that. 18:27:57 JG: Should be restrictive 18:28:13 JG: We want to make it harder to create role=banner landmarks 18:28:24 JG: Mailed Steve Faulkner about it, he agreed. 18:28:53 JN: Want to test this for accuracy 18:29:02 JG: There was a testing meeting earlier today 18:29:08 JN: This is HTML 5 testing 18:29:20 LW: Yes, host language defines how this is defined 18:30:10 LW: That's why I suggested to take down the focus on HTML in this document 18:30:17 LW: Focus more on ARIA 18:30:49 JG: Not a service to developers if we ignore HTML 18:31:03 LW: Not ignore it but this is ARIA practices, not HTML practices 18:31:22 JN: I agree, we need a way for people to find the correct HTML information 18:31:42 AA: Does the HTML spec contain this information? 18:32:12 s/contain this information/state that you get role=banner with this?/ 18:32:37 AA: Do we want to ask developers to look at three documents? 18:34:13 JN: Realistic I kind of agree with everyone, not sure we have the bandwidth to maintain. 18:34:22 JN: Steve has already documented this in his doucment 18:34:48 JN: Either we have to maintain it ourself, or point at Steve's document 18:35:12 AA: if you use the header element and you put role="banner" on it, what happens? 18:36:24 Link to W3C validator: http://validator.w3.org/nu/ 18:37:57 Can we just link to https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#header 18:37:57 JG: Why do we want to make it harder for developers? 18:38:02 JG: I disagree 18:38:21 JN: Can we link directly to HTML in ARIA document? 18:40:40 LW: There is a lot of information about this out there 18:41:08 JN: consensus seems to be to de-emphasise the HTML 5 information 18:41:25 JN: Is that what you're suggesting Léonie? 18:41:27 LW: Yes 18:41:42 AA: I need to agree with Jon 18:41:51 AA: We're trying to make a one stop shop here 18:42:25 JG: Let's not disconnect the information from the relevance. 18:42:41 The table here could be included as a simple reference for HTML... https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2013/02/using-wai-aria-landmarks-2013/ 18:44:43 LW: 2.1 should be moved to the bottom of this section 18:44:54 LW: It's the APG, not the HPG 18:45:42 LW: I'd be happy to create a comparative version 18:46:03 AA: I just know that day-to-day I work with people not involved with standards work 18:46:24 AA: They are clueless about this information or where to find it 18:46:51 LW: That's why I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting 18:47:05 LW: Put it in a single place 18:47:12 AA: They might only come for role=banner 18:50:51 AA: We have a problem in contentinfo 18:50:57 AA: Talking about footer 18:51:07 AA: In all three bullets for techniques. 18:51:14 JN: What's the problem? 18:51:27 JG: Footer creates contentinfo 18:51:30 AA: Oh, sorry 18:51:33 JN: Okay 18:51:52 JN: Looking at 2.3.4. for form 18:52:02 JN: Not sure why we have the first bullet point 18:52:29 JG: It's from the specification 18:52:57 “Whenever possible, controls contained in a form landmark should use native host semantics:” 18:53:03 JN: Can we move that to the bottom? 18:53:05 JG: Yes 18:53:13 JN: Maybe not 18:53:53 JN: If the same set of links is repeated on the page 18:54:38 JN: Don't think I agree with that 18:55:11 JN: If they contain the same information they should have the same label 18:55:14 MB: I agree with that 18:55:46 JN: Only issue is that users might think they are looping through the same element or have returned to the top of the list of elements 18:55:54 JN: copy 1, copy 2 just sounds weird 18:56:07 JG: Is there any guidance on redundancy? 18:57:04 JN: Don't know what the best practice is, but don't like copy n as part of the label? 18:57:14 JN: Maybe top navigation, side navigation etc 18:57:20 AA: That's a violation of WCAG 2.0 18:57:28 JN: Hmm, not sure (?) 18:57:50 JG: Léonie what would you like to see? 18:58:20 LW: Same label sounds good 18:58:39 AA: Wouldn't that be confusing if you go through the list of landmarks? 18:58:56 LW: Not sure it would matter if I was looking for navigation 18:59:39 LW: Different version numbers would make me curious as to what the difference is 18:59:51 JG: So better to use same label for each? 18:59:55 LW: Yeah 19:00:30 JN: We often have next/prev buttons, and we label them the same as they have the same function, even if they appear multiple times on the same page 19:00:47 AA: Might be hard for checking tools 19:00:56 JN: Yeah, but we're not writing for checking tools 19:01:05 AA: No, I know, but Jon asked what I thought. 19:01:26 JK: What is the use case for multiple navigation? 19:02:21 MB: Maybe lists of links to different pages on a website in the header that reappears in the footer? 19:05:02 *scribe passed out* 19:05:14 *lol 19:05:28 JG: If it's not clear to ourselves, we're not clear to others 19:05:42 JN: We have something now that is helpful to people in general 19:05:51 JN: Great work Jon and Ann, thank you 19:06:31 JG: Trisa Boers helped out a lot 19:07:18 Zakim, take on item 1 19:07:18 I don't understand 'take on item 1', MichielBijl 19:07:34 Correction: Teresa Boers 19:07:47 s/Trisa/Teresa/ 19:07:58 JN: We just start discussing tabpanels 19:08:21 Zakim, take on item 1 19:08:21 I don't understand 'take on item 1', MichielBijl 19:08:25 JN: checking bugzilla for issues 19:08:30 Zakim, take up item 1 19:08:30 agendum 1. "Jump for joy to celebrate leap day 2016!!!" taken up [from jamesn] 19:08:32 s/*lol/*lol*/ 19:08:38 Zakim, take up item 2 19:08:38 agendum 2. "Complete review of section 2.31 Tab Panel http://w3c.github.io/aria/practices/aria-practices.html#tabpanel" taken up [from jamesn] 19:08:56 JN: We have been through some of it before 19:09:00 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28993 19:10:07 JN: We dicided to do that (pageup and page down) 19:10:36 JN: We have been through the top section and made changes, and we removed stuff from... 19:10:54 JN: MB did you lookup the control+up arrow stuff 19:11:22 MB: I can't recall agreeing to look at that 19:11:24 MB: un intelligible 19:11:39 MB: Iam still here 19:12:49 JN: We should not say you have to do it 19:13:08 JN: We decided to drop control+PageUp and PageDn 19:13:27 JN: People can do it, but we won't recommend a set of controls 19:13:57 AA: Droping control+up arrow? 19:14:09 JN: You shift+tab back to the tablist 19:14:21 AA: You are saying 19:14:51 AA: Once you are in the tabpanel, shift+tab will take you tot he tab if you press it enough 19:15:04 LW: That works in software interface 19:15:19 JN: If someone whats a quicker way, they can do so 19:15:30 AA: As long as it is discoverable 19:15:54 JN: The discover ability is going to depend on the app 19:16:13 AA: There is lots tab panels, and tabs, and people are not trained on them 19:16:36 LW: Thats why it is important to emulate other software patterns (i.e. Windows) 19:17:10 JN: You can still add the functions, and in some cases it is highly desirable 19:17:33 JN: Not a good design flow, but adding a keystroke they don't know will help 19:17:39 AA: Agreed 19:17:51 JN: Do you have any implemenations 19:18:52 JG: We have an example, but it gets really complicated, I am glasd its gone 19:19:17 JN: There was an issue in Github on this as well 19:20:15 JN: Why ALT+Delete and not just Delete 19:20:37 JN: At Oracle when you are on a tab ou can just press delete 19:20:55 AA: What has focus? 19:21:11 JN: When focus is on the tab itself 19:21:31 JN: That is why it is ALT+Delete in the spec, but we did not like it 19:21:41 JN: Has anyone implemented it? 19:21:44 http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jet/uiComponents-tabs-addRemove.html 19:21:47 LW: I have not seen it 19:21:53 AA: No 19:22:14 JN: Link is to an example of a deletable tab 19:22:53 JB: Can you focus the x 19:23:13 JN: You can only focus the tab and use the delete key to remove 19:24:39 JN: I am happy to leave ALT+Delete as long with the Delete on the tab option 19:24:45 AA: There is more text in there 19:25:29 +1 19:25:44 JN: Can we talk about not deleting tabs 19:26:05 JG: I think we should have techniques 19:26:34 JG: We can build some examples for the APG 19:27:16 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/206 19:27:22 JN: SHould tab panels activate on focus? Was raised on Github 19:27:39 JN: Some times we do not want the arrow key to change the tab 19:28:04 JN: There are more complex web apps, that moving focus to a new tab is problematic 19:28:08 AA: I agree 19:28:30 JN: I agree and the people commenting on the bug agree to 19:29:09 JN: When application does not respond in a timely way, it can be a problem 19:29:29 JN: There are problems sometimes moving the focus 19:30:18 JN: Allowing space or other key to navigate a tab 19:30:38 JN: I think it is OK from a WCAG perspective either way 19:30:43 LW: I think it is OK 19:31:03 JN: I will write a proposal on this using space or enter 19:31:06 LW: Thanks 19:31:14 yes 19:31:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:31:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/29-aria-apg-minutes.html jongund 22:03:44 LJWatson has joined #aria-apg 23:42:21 jamesn has joined #aria-apg