18:42:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aapi
18:42:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/29-aapi-irc
18:42:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
18:42:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #aapi
18:42:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
18:42:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
18:42:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
18:42:30 <trackbot> Date: 29 March 2016
18:42:45 <clown> chair:  Joseph_Scheuhammer
18:42:52 <clown> agenda: this
18:43:12 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-2008 (Cynthia/Joseph) Handle concept of description property for UIA.
18:43:49 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-1681 (All) Clarifying inclusions rules and/or exclusion rules.
18:44:00 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-1569/ACTION-2032/ISSUE-540 (Cynthia/Jason) Section on AAPI differences - my response to Jason's latest, and including Cynthia's new example.
18:44:08 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-2012/ACTION-2013 (Joseph, Cynthia) UIA mappings for landmark roles, pull request merged: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/272
18:44:14 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-2041 (Joseph/James) AXAPI mapping for role="application", specifically change to AXLandmarkApplication subrole.
18:44:20 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-1668 (Rich/Alex) Add IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK for IA2.
18:44:28 <clown> agenda+ ACTION-1541 (Joseph/Joanie) AXAPI mapping for aria-modal property -- update progress.
18:44:35 <clown> agenda+ Triage: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/products/23 (start: ACTION-1686)
18:44:51 <clown> agenda+ Triage bugzilla: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=Core%20AAM&product=ARIA
18:45:03 <clown> agenda+ Triage bugzilla: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=AccName%20AAM&product=ARIA
18:45:20 <clown> agenda+ be done.
19:00:58 <AmeliaBR> AmeliaBR has joined #aapi
19:01:33 <joanie> scribe: joanie
19:03:10 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
19:05:35 <Rich> Rich has joined #aapi
19:05:42 <cyns> cyns has joined #aapi
19:05:43 <joanie> present+ Cynthia_Shelly
19:05:53 <clown> present+ Joseph_Scheuhammer
19:06:22 <AmeliaBR> present+ AmeliaBR
19:07:43 <joanie> present+ Richard_Schwerdtfeger
19:08:03 <joanie> Zakim, take up item 1
19:08:03 <Zakim> agendum 1. "ACTION-2008 (Cynthia/Joseph) Handle concept of description property for UIA." taken up [from clown]
19:08:18 <clown> action-2008?
19:08:18 <trackbot> action-2008 -- Joseph Scheuhammer to Handle concept of description property for UIA -- due 2016-03-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:08:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2008
19:08:24 <Rich> present+ Rich_Schwerdtfeger
19:08:40 <joanie> JS: There is going to be a description property in UIA, like there is in the other platforms.
19:09:10 <joanie> (Group discusses how to do pull requests)
19:09:58 <clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-2008/core-aam/core-aam.html#ariaDescribedBy
19:10:06 <joanie> JS: The above URL is for the change.
19:10:23 <joanie> RS: I'm pleased at this new property.
19:10:34 <joanie> CS: We also have help text.
19:10:50 <joanie> CS: Which is for things which are not descriptions, but otherwise helpful.
19:10:59 <joanie> RS: Can we put errormessage in help text?
19:11:07 <joanie> CS: It's usually for things like tooltips.
19:11:41 <joanie> ABR: In the name and description calculation, if the API/AT has a way of presenting both description and tooltip, this will preserve each.
19:11:50 <joanie> CS: I don't know if the other platforms have a way to do that.
19:11:56 <joanie> CS: But we do.
19:12:22 <joanie> JS: If it's not already in master, I'll put it there.
19:12:31 <cyns_> cyns_ has joined #aapi
19:12:36 <joanie> CS: If I put it in master, I'm not sure how I did it.
19:12:44 <joanie> JS: I'll check, and I'll close the action.
19:13:02 <joanie> CS: While I was working on that, I made an action for myself to add this to AccName AAM.
19:13:08 <joanie> CS: I think that's a bit more complicated.
19:13:11 <joanie> action-1104
19:13:11 <trackbot> action-1104 -- Cynthia Shelly to Define what the accessibility API mapping is for UIA on aria-describedby in section 5.5.1 table when the element does not exist in the accessibility tree such as when css: display:none applies -- due 2016-12-31 -- CLOSED
19:13:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1104
19:13:24 <joanie> JS: That is action-1104
19:13:34 <joanie> CS: I'm doing a bunch of AccName changes.
19:13:41 <joanie> JS: You closed it as a duplicate.
19:13:46 <joanie> CS: There's another one too.
19:13:55 <joanie> CS: I'm thinking of action-2042.
19:13:58 <joanie> action-2042
19:13:58 <trackbot> action-2042 -- Cynthia Shelly to update accname-aam to reflect UIA FullDescription -- due 2016-04-25 -- OPEN
19:13:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2042
19:14:07 <joanie> CS: And that's a little more involved.
19:14:18 <joanie> CS: I'm doing some other work, but didn't finish it before CSUN.
19:14:37 <clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/accname-aam/accname-aam.html#accessible-name-and-description-mapping
19:14:56 <joanie> JS: Look at the table (above URL), under accessible description, there's a TBD under UIA.
19:15:07 <joanie> CS: Action 1104 was just about aria-describedby.
19:15:26 <joanie> CS: This (other action) involves looking through all the places where changes might be needed.
19:15:39 <joanie> CS: I also need to think about what impact having three fields has.
19:16:04 <joanie> JS: I'll keep an eye on what you're doing.
19:16:17 <joanie> CS: I'll have a sizable pull request for you.
19:16:23 <joanie> JS: Other questions?
19:16:26 <joanie> Zakim, next item
19:16:26 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ACTION-1681 (All) Clarifying inclusions rules and/or exclusion rules." taken up [from clown]
19:16:36 <clown> action-1681
19:16:36 <trackbot> action-1681 -- Joseph Scheuhammer to Propose new wording, as an editorial change only to clarify the inclusion rules in section 5.1.2 -- due 2015-09-15 -- OPEN
19:16:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1681
19:16:44 <joanie> JS: This is a continuation from last meeting.
19:17:02 <joanie> JS: We stopped at the case where you have an event handler on the body which handles all click events on the document.
19:17:11 <joanie> JS: And what the means for inclusion in the accessibility tree.
19:17:12 <clown> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Mar/0159.html
19:17:22 <joanie> JS: Rich sent email (link above) to Alex.
19:17:31 <joanie> JS: (Reads from the aforementioned email)
19:17:37 <clown> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Mar/0215.html
19:17:41 <joanie> JS: Alex replied (above URL)
19:17:54 <joanie> JS: Which I sort of understand, but not completely.
19:18:04 <joanie> RS: (Reads statement from Alex's email)
19:18:15 <joanie> JS: For this particular condition, it just exposes the leaves.
19:18:27 <joanie> CS: Does it cause other elements which wouldn't normally be in the tree to be there?
19:18:32 <joanie> RS: I don't think so.
19:18:46 <joanie> ABR: If the leaf node is an em element or span, that would add a lot of clutter.
19:18:59 <joanie> CS: I think we're not going to expose every element in the DOM.
19:19:20 <joanie> CS: If there's an event handler like onclick on the body, we'll handle it a different way.
19:19:28 <joanie> Group: It's expensive.
19:19:44 <joanie> JS: If I read him literally, he's not talking about the span, but the text in the span.
19:19:51 <joanie> JS: Is that the correct interpretation?
19:20:01 <joanie> RS: Like cdata?
19:20:08 <joanie> RS: We can ask him.
19:20:28 <joanie> CS: It would be good to contact him to clarify.
19:20:41 <joanie> RS: I'll respond to him.
19:21:04 <joanie> s/cdata/CDATA/
19:21:51 <joanie> JS: (Reads from Alex's response)
19:22:02 <joanie> RS: I believe when he said "I think", he didn't look.
19:22:07 <joanie> JS: But I did (look).
19:22:26 <joanie> JS: What you have to do is put a click handler on the child element to cancel the bubbling.
19:22:35 <joanie> RS: I'll include that in my response.
19:22:41 <joanie> JS: Mind you, I only tested Firefox.
19:23:12 <joanie> s/child element/input element/
19:23:38 <joanie> RS: Any particular version of Firefox, Joseph?
19:23:49 <joanie> JS: Whatever was the latest version as of last week.
19:23:55 <joanie> RS: Email sent.
19:24:04 <joanie> JS: Does that answer our question, then?
19:24:09 <joanie> RS: He didn't quite answer it.
19:24:20 <joanie> CS: I think it's pretty clear that we don't want to require browsers to do that.
19:24:42 <joanie> CS: It sounds like if there's things already in the tree, they're exposing the action on those objects.
19:25:15 <joanie> ABR: So as far as the spec, we want to make it clear that we'll not be adding extra nodes to the accessibility tree as a result of global or inherited onclick handlers.
19:25:31 <joanie> ABR: If you add one to a specific node, then that node needs to be in the tree?
19:25:50 <joanie> CS: I think that's an open issue, along with how to handle the global element?
19:26:06 <joanie> JS: For instance, if it's on the body.
19:26:28 <joanie> CS: Body might not be a good example; if the global handler is on a div or span.
19:26:39 <joanie> CS: In that case, we would include it.
19:27:04 <joanie> ABR: It might result in something with role="presentation" winding up in the tree.
19:27:13 <joanie> ABR: But we need to clear that up in the Core AAM.
19:27:40 <joanie> CS: It's not all event handlers; it's just click.
19:27:47 <joanie> CS: We don't want all event handlers in the tree.
19:28:03 <joanie> ABR: And key handlers are covered by focusability.
19:28:17 <joanie> CS: Touch handlers we treat as click.
19:28:29 <joanie> CS: We can look at if we want to do W3C touch and pointer events.
19:28:42 <joanie> CS: But I think those may be less common, or less urgent.
19:28:50 <joanie> CS: And that we're fine for 1.1.
19:28:56 <joanie> CS: But someone could look into it.
19:29:04 <joanie> JS: So you just want click handlers for now?
19:29:06 <joanie> CS: Yes.
19:29:17 <joanie> ABR: I would generalize that to touch or mouse event handlers.
19:29:40 <joanie> ABR: It would be strange if single click were treated differently than double click.
19:29:47 <joanie> CS: But that's device dependent.
19:29:59 <joanie> ABR: I guess the question is if it will be useful to expose it to the AT?
19:30:23 <joanie> ABR: If so, do we want an open-ended inclusion?
19:30:33 <joanie> ABR: In other words, if the AT can handle it.
19:30:45 <joanie> JS + CS: I think that's for 2.0.
19:31:00 <joanie> CS: This is risky stuff (for 1.1). But we might wish to dip our toe into it.
19:31:15 <joanie> JS: I think right now, only click is something the platform can handle.
19:31:23 <joanie> JS + CS: I like your idea.
19:31:38 <joanie> ABR: If we could come up with open-ended language that allows it.
19:31:44 <joanie> CS: I don't like open-ended.
19:32:03 <joanie> JS: We could add some sort of text which indicates we'll deal with it in future versions of ARIA.
19:32:24 <joanie> ABR: As far as authoring guidance goes, authors should not be relying upon event handlers to get something included in the tree.
19:32:44 <joanie> CS: We wired up click in Windows 10. And we did it because so many websites do not add the appropriate thing.
19:32:56 <joanie> CS: We scoped it very tightly, however.
19:33:18 <joanie> CS: What we found is that it helps in a reasonable number of cases.
19:33:26 <joanie> CS: And didn't make the rest any worse.
19:33:43 <joanie> ABR: I think this is one of those things where the browser is trying to patch up authoring errors.
19:33:53 <joanie> ABR: Thus being conservative seems appropriate.
19:34:15 <joanie> JS: I will come up with some wording for global versus element-specific handlers.
19:34:30 <joanie> CS: There is certainly language out there for this.
19:34:36 <joanie> JS: I'll look around.
19:34:54 <clown> issue-1017
19:34:54 <trackbot> issue-1017 -- Separate out text from role="none" and "presentation" so that a single location may be referenced in Core-AAM -- open
19:34:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/issues/1017
19:34:59 <joanie> JS: I am waiting on issue-1017.
19:35:13 <joanie> JS (Describes issue)
19:35:22 <joanie> RS: If we apply a role to something inherited?
19:35:28 <joanie> JS: No, it's an author error.
19:35:51 <joanie> JS: The concrete case is presentational role being used, along with a global ARIA property (e.g. aria-label).
19:36:27 <joanie> JS: Where things override the presentational role is scattered throughout.
19:36:43 <joanie> RS: I thought we were going to put all the presentational stuff in a single section.
19:36:57 <joanie> JS: (Quotes the text in the issue)
19:37:11 <joanie> RS: That was right before we went to CSUN.
19:37:13 <joanie> JS: Yes.
19:37:19 <joanie> RS: Do I have an action?
19:37:28 <joanie> RS: And it should go in the ARIA spec.
19:37:40 <joanie> JS: There is no action, and yes it will be in the ARIA spec.
19:37:54 <joanie> RS: We also have to deal with password and keyboard shortcuts.
19:38:05 <joanie> RS: If you give me an action, I'll do it for the ARIA spec.
19:38:08 <clown> action:  Rich to separater out text from role="presentation/none" so that a single location may be referenced in Core-AAM.
19:38:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2044 - Separater out text from role="presentation/none" so that a single location may be referenced in core-aam. [on Richard Schwerdtfeger - due 2016-04-05].
19:38:19 <clown> action-2044
19:38:19 <trackbot> action-2044 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to Separater out text from role="presentation/none" so that a single location may be referenced in core-aam. -- due 2016-04-05 -- OPEN
19:38:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2044
19:38:41 <joanie> ABR: That's an action to clear up the ARIA spec.
19:38:57 <AmeliaBR> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Mar/0158.html
19:39:01 <joanie> ABR: For the Core AAM, there will be additional details regarding when things are conflicting.
19:39:14 <joanie> ABR: The URL above points to an email I sent a couple of weeks ago.
19:39:30 <joanie> ABR: Is this what everyone else understands?
19:40:05 <joanie> ABR: (Describes contents of email)
19:41:02 <joanie> (Group processes contents of email)
19:41:32 <joanie> CS: Number 1 is fine.
19:41:41 <joanie> CS: I think I'd add tabindex of -1 to item 1.
19:41:53 <joanie> ABR: But what if it has aria-hidden on it because it's not relevant.
19:42:10 <joanie> CS: There are various reasons things go in (natively they go in, or their focusable, etc.)
19:42:19 <joanie> CS: Tabindex of -1 falls into that category.
19:42:26 <joanie> CS: But I see what you're trying to do.
19:42:50 <joanie> CS: That item 1 applies even if it's hidden.
19:43:04 <joanie> ABR: You're (Cynthia) taking my list in reverse order, I think.
19:43:49 <Rich> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2044
19:43:57 <joanie> RS: Above is the new action.
19:44:21 <joanie> RS: You'll see some text in there.
19:44:33 <joanie> JS: Amelia, is your email text the suggested text for Rich?
19:44:43 <joanie> ABR: This is something I'd like to see in the Core AAM.
19:44:50 <joanie> JS: And wipe out the text that is there?
19:45:03 <clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-2008/core-aam/core-aam.html#include_elements
19:45:03 <joanie> ABR: I don't care as much as what is in there adds up to what's in my email.
19:45:20 <joanie> CS: I don't normally like algorithms in specs, but maybe this is an instance where we want one.
19:45:31 <joanie> JS: I put in the URL for the current inclusion (above).
19:45:35 <joanie> JS: It's just a list.
19:45:55 <joanie> ABR: What brought up this issue is that it doesn't right now handle certain interactions between including and excluding.
19:46:00 <joanie> RS: And title?
19:46:10 <joanie> JS: That's part of HTML AAM; not Core AAM.
19:46:28 <joanie> ABR: I have it that role="none" takes precedence over native host language semantics.
19:46:44 <joanie> RS: So if someone puts a tooltip on there, we don't care?
19:46:45 <cyns_> step 1: include based on native rules. Step 2: include things with roles (and the other properties) Step 3: remove hidden things Step 4: add back focusable and other override stuff
19:47:04 <joanie> ABR: If someone puts a caption on a table with role="presentation"
19:47:23 <joanie> CS: Above is a quick example of a algorithmic approach.
19:47:29 <joanie> CS: (Reads)
19:47:46 <joanie> ABR: I think the only thing you're missing there are things which would normally be included due to native roles.
19:47:52 <joanie> CS: That's step 3, in my mind.
19:48:05 <joanie> ABR: No, because hidden overrides things which role="none" does not.
19:48:11 <joanie> CS: I meant to include those in step 3
19:48:19 <joanie> CS: That makes it clear what goes in and out.
19:48:31 <joanie> CS: I'm not sure if it's good from the implementation standpoint.
19:48:36 <joanie> RS: Where does it belong?
19:48:40 <AmeliaBR> s/due to native roles/due to native roles, except for role=none/presentation/
19:49:06 <joanie> CS: I don't think it needs to be in the ARIA spec.
19:49:18 <joanie> RS: But what Joseph was saying is that it's in different places in the ARIA spec.
19:49:34 <joanie> JS: We have a section in the Core AAM which points to the ARIA spec.
19:49:45 <joanie> JS: And what it points to in the spec is huge and not especially clear.
19:50:37 <joanie> ABR: So the section in the Core area that needs to be cleaned up are the rules when an author-supplied role of presentation/none will be ignored.
19:50:43 <clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/core-aam/core-aam.html#exclude_elements2
19:50:58 <joanie> CS: Maybe we need a sentence which says what attributes will cause that role to be ignored.
19:51:04 <joanie> ABR: It's there, but lost in the other text.
19:51:16 <joanie> RS: Other than aria-labelledby....
19:51:40 <joanie> (Group discusses which attributes are relevant)
19:52:17 <joanie> RS: I'll put it in presentation.
19:52:28 <joanie> JS: Put a subsection in presentation with all these little nuances.
19:52:45 <joanie> RS: I'm not sure how to put the subsection, but I'll give it some thought.
19:53:33 <joanie> JS: Looking at the current exclusion rules, aria-hidden is a SHOULD NOT; not a MUST NOT.
19:53:54 <joanie> ABR: Rich, did you have any more questions about the changes you'll make to the ARIA spec?
19:53:57 <joanie> RS: I don't.
19:54:08 <joanie> ABR: Why don't we shift focus to the Core AAM spec then?
19:54:32 <joanie> ABR: We have things which are currently described as SHOULD NOT rather than providing very clear rules.
19:55:23 <joanie> ABR: Part of the problem is that these are some of the things which should be excluded, except for other things.
19:55:33 <joanie> ABR: Is that why it was done as SHOULD NOT?
19:55:38 <joanie> JS: I know the history.
19:55:48 <joanie> JS: It used to say, you must rely on the CSS only.
19:55:58 <joanie> JS: That gradually weakened over time.
19:56:26 <joanie> JS: Firefox insisted on keeping aria-hidden things in the tree for 1.0.
19:56:33 <joanie> JD: They've since pruned the tree.
19:57:12 <joanie> CS: Why don't we change it to a MUST NOT and see what they say.
19:57:22 <joanie> CS: We should explicitly ask them for their feedback.
19:57:26 <joanie> JS: I'll ask Alex.
19:57:37 <clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/core-aam/core-aam.html#ariaHiddenTrue
19:57:44 <joanie> JS: And also point this out.
19:58:06 <joanie> JS: If you look at the above, every last one indicates should not be exposed unless it fires an event or is focusable.
19:58:10 <joanie> CS: That's true.
19:58:28 <joanie> CS: MUST NOT be in the tree unless the above condition is met. In which case is MUST be in the tree.
19:58:36 <joanie> CS: Let's get rid of all the SHOULD's
19:59:19 <joanie> ABR: aria-hidden overrides global attributes where presentational role does not.
19:59:27 <joanie> CS: Which is actually a big difference.
19:59:37 <joanie> JS: I made a note of that.
19:59:46 <joanie> JS: Can we wrap this up?
20:00:03 <joanie> CS: Do we want to make the change, or talk to the Firefox developers first?
20:00:09 <joanie> JS: Give me an action.
20:00:15 <joanie> JS: Actually, I have an action.
20:00:21 <joanie> action-1681
20:00:21 <trackbot> action-1681 -- Joseph Scheuhammer to Propose new wording, as an editorial change only to clarify the inclusion rules in section 5.1.2 -- due 2015-09-15 -- OPEN
20:00:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1681
20:00:44 <joanie> JS: I think the rules are all there, but ambiguous. So it's mostly editorial.
20:00:57 <joanie> JS: The change from a SHOULD to a MUST is the exception.
20:01:11 <joanie> JS: I'm going to push the due date out to two weeks from today.
20:01:20 <joanie> JS: Will your text be done in two weeks, Rich?
20:01:22 <joanie> RS: I can try.
20:02:21 <joanie> JS: I'm putting a note in my action that it depends on yours, Rich.
20:04:11 <joanie> RRSAgent, make minutes
20:04:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/29-aapi-minutes.html joanie
20:05:17 <joanie> present- Richard_Schwerdtfeger
20:05:25 <joanie> RRSAgent, make minutes
20:05:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/29-aapi-minutes.html joanie
20:05:56 <joanie> Zakim, part
20:05:56 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Joanmarie_Diggs, Cynthia_Shelly, Joseph_Scheuhammer, AmeliaBR, Richard_Schwerdtfeger, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
20:05:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aapi
20:06:23 <joanie> scribeOptions: -final
20:06:30 <AmeliaBR> AmeliaBR has left #aapi
20:06:30 <joanie> RRSAgent, stop