See also: IRC log
<Rich> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0221.html
<fesch> scribe: fesch
action-1723
<trackbot> action-1723 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Editorial - create sections listing the roles that provide (1) nameFrom:author and (2) nameFrom:contents -- due 2016-08-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1723
<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-1723/aria/aria.html#namefromauthor
JD: want to do automatically, all roles support name from author expect one role
<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-1723/aria/aria.html#namefromcontent
jd: name from content
<fesch_> jd: do folks agree a section with all roles except two is unneeded
<fesch_> rs: thoughts?
<fesch_> scribe: fesch_
mc: maybe say roles name from author...
rs: would be nice to shrink to have smaller lists
jd: name from author is on all... some have name required... can get from content
rs: I think you should have a
table
... a lot of time people will put a label on top of content
that isn't needed
mk: will have authoring guidance on that...
mc: in authoring practices would be non-normative, but would give Joseph a place to look
rs: name from content in authoring practices would be fine (as a table)
jd: Joseph wants a list to link to
<fesch> jd: might make sense to have it both places
<fesch> scribe: fesch
mk: having it two places is good, authors don't know what name from author and name from content means
mc: it is OK to have in both places, spec would have a minimal version, authoring practices the useful one, but not duplicate everything
mk: In APG I could have a column
for each
... Michael how do you get automatically generated?
mc: Shane's script can be migrated...
rs: does anyone have any issues
with name from XXX?
... does anyone have name required as a separate column or an
astrick?
mc: we need to wait for Joseph
... that will be editorial, lets do the simplest thing
... whatever works for Joseph..
rs: we decided to move into the name computation section
mc I think joint ownership is important and we nominally have the greater expertise
mc: we can have single ownership as long as we have time to review
rs: that seems like joint
ownership
... we have a lot on our plate
mc: if we take it off our plate, then we loose control of the timeline
<chaals> [Joint ownership is actually pretty painful from a process point of view. Single ownership simplifies some stuff - and we'll happily give review time]
mc: in theory they could do that, if we don't have it a joint deliverable
rs: I don't have a problem with
them owning it (soley)
... ARIA 2 will be a huge effort
<fesch_> rs: up to now dPub did not have the skills
<fesch_> scribe: fesch_
rs: for a host language, I think it is OK...
mc: do we think a module would be produced outside ARIA WG?
rs" no
mc: then that wouldn't be a worry
<chaals> [But note that it would be very helpful for WebPlatform, if we take on "official" reposnsibility for AAM, to have a sense of how long you would want for review cycles…]
mc: I just want the tradeoffs to be understood
rs: will put it out for CfC... and get a vote on it...
<fesch__> mc: they may need us give us a few months for review when going to CR, if we haven´t reviewed before
<fesch__> scribe: fesch__
mc: or if we review every quarter, a month might be OK
js: don't we have a policy for this?
mc: our charter declares it is a
joint deliverable, their charter has it as their (alone)
deliverable
... as long as no one has a problem with that...
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria
mc: maybe on our web page we might want to describe the AAM work
<fesch> a
<fesch> a
<fesch> scribe: fesch
rs: I think we are going to have to work on it together...
js: Looking up statement we sent out...
rs: can come back later in call
rs: working with Zerkov and Tah
...
... will have different stuff for details .... no answers on
reverse relationsihips
mk: joanie was asked if she would agree to concatenating, did we agree on a order?
rs: we didn't agree on an order
mk: request for order, putting in issues
rs: don't know what the delimitier would be
mk: that is a problem
rs: I'm not crazy for it....
mk: maybe I will seek an explanation -
rs: James said we have to say both anyways...
mk: this takes away flexibility from screen readers
rs: here is the problem - we have
only one string to fill
... he did not want the AT to fill the string
... we could add another string for error message, doubt that
will happen, lot of work
... we don't want to stringify an error message, only one
string for description, he did not want AT to do it
mk: will talk with him
jd: I will work with whatever, either way
mk: we already have a problem with screen readers talking too much
jn: error messages always need to be spoken
rs: AT vendors don't attend the meetings so we have to rehash...
jg: is this about what authors?
cs: the point of error messages was to be distinct from descriptions
rs: I don't like stringifying,
because there may be help in there
... matt please do it quickly
mk: which list? IA2 list?
rs: yes
cs: will it matter if IA2 is
different from UIA?
... if we need to do a call 2pm Pacific....
mk: I usually meet at 4pm Pacific
rs: sending email to ARIA and IA2
list - more we look at concatenation - the worse it looks
... concatenation provides problem for Edge and
internationalization (space issue in Chinese)
... point of errormsg was to separate them out... and the size
of the string could be an issue
https://www.w3.org/wiki/ARIA_1.1_Testable_Statements#ARIA_Role_Testable_Statements
rs: have a number of issues with
interfaces
... separated MSAA and IA2 and they may both have roles
fred: there is a problem for the interaces
cs: I will fill out the TODO's for UIA
rs: Cynthia if you can go back through the core AAM,
cs: OK
rs: need feed roles,
... I will take my branch and pull in -
... then let Cynthia fill in UIA
<Rich> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2016
rs: some of the things on here -
APA Monday and Tuesday
... Thursday Education outreach.... James N. will you be at
TPAC
jn: yes
rs: you need to lead that
discussion
... COGA interlock - 13:30 - 14:30 -- not worried about
prefixes but will be creating the module, will call it
personization and work with Lisa S on this
... : Friday meeting with TAG, met with TAG in July... will
share ARIA 2.0 requirements.... they may have an approach for
problems
... trying to get a Monday meeting with Web Components...
<Rich> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/552
rs: Web Components want a role for every HTML element... that is a lot
<Rich> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/553
rs: will talk about that... also
talking about custom widgets with TAG
... Leonie wanted us to lead on this - this has to be joint
mk: I don't see it --
rs: that is an APA meeting -
Janina and I are splitting up the meetings...
... it is in todays agenda
... on Friday, after Web Platform folks earlier in the week,
and want to meet as a group, and put proposal together
... is MS doing anything with polymir?
... web components?
cs: yes
<janina> Argh, just lost audio!
rs: can include links -
mk: would be nice to have everything in the wiki
js: will have a joint meeting with CSS, will put agenda on wiki
mb: it is a joint meeting between
APA, ARIA and CSS?
... need dial in accesss
rs: what about dPub meeting?
js: Tzitha isn't back until next week
RESOLUTION: have Michael, Rich and Janina publish a CfC on publication of HTML AAAM
?sAA/AA/
<Rich> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/553
<Rich> https://github.com/a11y-api/a11y-api/
mk: github is hard to use, learning the landmarks
<Rich> http://a11y-api.github.io/a11y-api/spec/
rs: a lot of people have been working about an accessibility API
cs: 6 months ago we thought about
bringing it to a community group, don't know what
happened
... the community group isn't a priority (personal priority,
but not work priority)
rs: I don't know what to do with
it...
... I don't see anything about device independent ...
<Rich> https://github.com/a11y-api/a11y-api/
rs: Dominic asked me to respond to this... first I have seen it
cs: Microsoft isn't currently involved
mk: in the repo there are only three contributors,
mc: but there are three different branches... confusing
jg: Michael did you get a request
for a reoccurring meeting on Wednesday for test
... we are making progress on test cases, but missing
platforms
rs: we don't have anyone wanting to work on OSX
sm: tests need to be set up so we can run them manually
rs: apple should do their platform...
jg: I want to find out who is doing what...
rs: Joanie ATK
jg: which is more valuable IA2 or?
rs: chrome is 50% of the market... so IA2
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/few months for review/few months for review when going to CR, if we haven´t reviewed before/ Succeeded: s/joanie had asked for agreement on/joanie was asked if she would agree to/ Succeeded: s/AAA/AA/ Found Scribe: fesch Inferring ScribeNick: fesch Found Scribe: fesch_ Inferring ScribeNick: fesch_ Found Scribe: fesch Inferring ScribeNick: fesch Found Scribe: fesch_ Inferring ScribeNick: fesch_ Found Scribe: fesch__ Inferring ScribeNick: fesch__ Found Scribe: fesch Inferring ScribeNick: fesch Scribes: fesch, fesch_, fesch__ ScribeNicks: fesch, fesch_, fesch__ Present: Joanmarie_Diggs MichielBijl jongund Janina Rich_Schwerdtfeger MichaelC fesch ShaneM Found Date: 25 Aug 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-aria-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]