W3C

- DRAFT -

ARIA WG

27 Aug 2020

Attendees

Present
MarkMcCarthy, pkra, Joanmarie_Diggs, carmacleod, James_Craig, Matt_King, IsabelHoldsworth, MichaelC
Regrets
HarrisSchneiderman, JonGunderson, ScottOHara, GretaKrafsig, CurtBellew
Chair
JamesNurthen
Scribe
MarkMcCarthy

Contents


<scribe> scribe: MarkMcCarthy

Welcome Isabel Holdsworth!

<jamesn> https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2020-08-20+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues

jamesn: this one new issue today, a 1.2 or 1.3 issue?

jcraig: i don't think it needs 1.2, haven't seen aaronlev's PR yet, but.. 1.3 sounds better to me

jamesn: works for me

https://github.com/w3c/core-aam/issues/80

aaronlev: that works for me too

jcraig: seems like the answer to 1 might be not to expose them different, 2 we can discuss later/with 1.3

jamesn: add an agenda label?

jcraig: up to you, if you want to discuss in the meeting. expect it to be an easy fix or no fix

jamesn: sooner better than later - thanks!

<jamesn> https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2020-08-20+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues

jamesn: 2 new PRs, 1315 and and 1314

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1314

jamesn: are we saying we don't want to use the old PR for this?

carmacleod: there was already one??

jamesn: it wasn't that simple, no worries. it was pushed and kicked down the road to 1.3

carmacleod: i'll still take care of it, adjust my PR accordingly after reviewing Wilco's PR, still needs 1.3

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1162

jamesn: yeah, i don't want anything else in 1.2

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1315

carmacleod: this may be controverisal, but didn't hear objection to the SHOULD... so let's get this done!
... anyone who is interested in landmarks at all, have a look at this please
... the normative language was present in a few places but not everywhere. the new-ish thing is that the language used to say MAY, it now says SHOULD

jamesn: jcraig can you review?

jcraig: yeah, and i'm going to discuss within Apple as well

jamesn: can someone do the same for Google and Microsoft?

aaronlev: i can bring it to the right folks in Google - this is just for HTML?

carmacleod: yep

jamesn: okay, and Microsoft?

carmacleod: if not Sarah Higley, Melanie Richards?

aaronlev: well they have the same codebase as us...

jamesn: this is more the user interface though...?

jcraig: maybe Kevin Babbit?

aaronlev: he'd send it to the right person at leastd

jamesn: i can send an email i suppose

joanie: when i need info about UIA, he's who i flag for review, but i don't know him per se

jamesn: we could ask sarah higley to find out who the right person is?

carmacleod: that might be good

jamesn: i'll ping sarah and see what we can find out

aaronlev: maybe Alice Boxhall?

jamesn: could be, but we can't ping her on github. MichaelC?

MichaelC: maybe I didn't add her, so let me check

aaronlev: why is this an ARIA thing?

carmacleod: because of the change in the spec about user agents. HTML issue is open and that's being worked on. but it's a multipronged approach
... when i opened the HTML issue, they wanted a bit more in the ARIA spec -- some of the definitions. this issue has been open since 2016, so i thought I'd work on it

jcraig: aaronlev, the overlap is that landmarks were defined by ARIA and not HTML, while HTML works on a lot of mainstream changes. so it's kind of both

aaronlev: will this help users without AT?

carmacleod: essentially, the hope is such that it would

jamesn: this is only for implict roles? not explict ARIA roles?

carmacleod: right - UAs won't go there. i had to reduce the scope a little

jamesn: if we end up with that, seems like the ARIA equivalence might be worse?

carmacleod: or, use an HTML button! this would be the same type of thing "don't fake a main, use an HTML main"

jamesn: there's some exceptions, like an SVG experience

carmacleod: true.

jamesn: either way, seems like a reasonable approach that could be finessed later

Matt_King: seems like somebody splitting hairs - doesn't matter much on the code side.

aaronlev: my concern about having ARIA roles affecting UA behavior for those without screen readers MAY be a slippery slope

jamesn: it'd still be a big win to use native HTML

carmacleod: Matt_King, could you review, as well?

Matt_King: yep

carmacleod: i'd appreciate it, thank you!

jamesn: added you Matt_King, thanks

Meaty topic for next week

jamesn: deep dive for next week, second part of trees?

carmacleod: let's do it

jamesn: great! so next deep dive is next thursday one hour before this

ARIA 1.3 timeline

jamesn: joanie and i discussed - we want to try and put WR WD of 1.3 out near the beginning of January
... so basically, we need to wrap before the holidays
... braille stuff is ready, annotations are ready, a few other things too. we don't want to hold up WR if possible
... as we're planning, let's try to remember we only have a few months to get 1.3 ready, and other things can push to 1.4

sina: +1

jamesn: if we miss something, another is coming

carmacleod: is there a theme?

Matt_King: theme is get it done [laughs]

jamesn: right - basically we just want to get some new things finished up
... having something that people are invested in means we can keep increasing the cadence

sina: how does that relate to 1.2's timeline?

jamesn: 1.2 is done, CR is done (once some testing is done)
... 1.2 won't be "DONE" until we do WR WD of 1.3. doesn't mean we shouldn't start getting reviews of 1.3
... danger is, people will look at 1.2, see 1.3 coming down the pike, and maybe disregard 1.2

carmacleod: people don't tend to update tooling, recs, until it's at least in CR. or even wait for Recommendation.

jamesn: some tooling moves forward farily quick as we do (like axe)

sina: if i don't have to discuss comboboxes again, that'd be nice

carmacleod: yeah!

+1

jamesn: any other comments for this?

[silence]

[Clarify "required owned element"](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1033)

jamesn: this is Wilco's issue that carmacleod did a PR for before - Wilco asking for updates
... answer - not a new issue in 1.2, this has been an ARIA issue overall, so not treating as a blocker to 1.2
... working on it sooner than later, but not 1.2
... disagreements?

sina: well back to your original statement, we're trying to wrap 1.2, so...

jamesn: awesome
... scott had an issue about container roles and some things... carmacleod is going to look at it and punt to 1.3

carmacleod: yep

jamesn: plan to get a PR into 1.3 sooner than later
... i'll leave the agenda tag on it, let's discuss next meeting carmacleod

carmacleod: sounds good

1.3 Triage

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aproject+sort%3Acreated-asc

jamesn: carmacleod is already working on 350
... well to back up - i created projects to categorize some of these. there are a lot of issues. but at least this should help separate things out, and we can put some of these into those projects
... 500. jcraig, does this need 1.3?

jcraig: i think it was a mistake in the first place, and needs fixing

jamesn: agree

jcraig: IIRC, joanie and Matt_King might know some of the reasons for objection, but i think this will be useful in general

jamesn: as long as theres an implicit semantic it'd be okay?

jcraig: yeah, but let's keep discussion for later, move it to 1.3

carmacleod: now that we have generic role, many more things have an implicit ARIA role, so...

jamesn: but roledescription is prohibited in certain circumstances

jcraig: i'm okay with an exclude list, but not necessarily an allow list

jamesn: 516 - this is editorial...

jcraig: assign me

jamesn: perfect
... 518 - asked for updates a year ago, i'm closing

jcraig: second

jamesn: 542 - aria-readonly for forms

Matt_King: getting this to WR by 1.3, who's championing?

jamesn: if Stefan was here, he opened it. i'll tag him on Github

jcraig: this would be a little difficult, unless all custom and no native elements

Matt_King: might be helpful to add that comment to the issue jcraig

jcraig: on it

jamesn: 559 - optional role attributes for anchors... i've always thought something like this could be useful
... i'd love to get this moving

Matt_King: why is it for the anchor?

jamesn: well a link OR button, in my opinion

Matt_King: that'll be the hard part of the discussion

carmacleod: final comment says it should be in HTML not ARIA

jamesn: sure, but it doens't mean we shouldn't/couldn't...

Matt_King: feels to me like this belongs in ARIA

jamesn: either way we'd want an equivalence. i'll take this one

Matt_King: hardest part is what to expect AT to do

jamesn: good point Matt_King, i'll put a deep dive tag on it

Matt_King: good idea

jamesn: 630 - deprecate aria-flowto
... seems like it could be useful, but hasn' tbeen done well and is fairly useless

jcraig: idealistically, i'm in favor of this, but I think Apple implemented portions of it in iOS

Matt_King: i think this is one thing where we saw a problem and came up with an engineering solution, but not with a sufficient understanding of real world use cases
... might need more real world research

jamesn: i'd love to come up with a helpful replacement - there are real world problems that need solving. especially if iOS is successfully using it, or something like a flow chart

Matt_King: what aria-owns does is very inconsistent across UAs

carmacleod: aria-owns could work similarly, according to Alice

jamesn: this is about -flowto, not -owns
... either way, jcraig are you okay with 1.3? you might be the only one with an implementation

jcraig: works for me

Matt_King: yeah, user research will be really helpful

jamesn: 651, text formatting semantics. aaronlev, can you take this on for 1.3?

aaronlev left the meeting for today

jamesn: move to 1.4?

carmacleod: with a comment

jamesn: if no one wants to take it on, i'll move to 1.4

jcraig: he may care about that a lot, so maybe don't move it yet. it's important, but hard

Matt_King: yeah, this isn't a single issue, this is more like a whole project.

jamesn: 683, name from author/content

jcraig: maybe Isabel could followup with Steve?

Isabel: that's fine!

<carmacleod> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/683

jamesn: 684 - tri-state toggle; matt, you raised this

jcraig: i see this less with pressed than checked...

Matt_King: may indeed be editorial, was taken directly from the spec

jcraig: i've only seen mixed if you press other things. the "mix" is implicit based on other selections

Matt_King: just like a tri-state checkbox

jamesn: you're already assigned, do you wanna keep it? 1.3 okay?

Matt_King: yep, this should be pretty light weight.

jamesn: it's top of the hour! thanks everyone, remember to discuss trees next week before this ARIA call!

Isabel: can anyone join?

jamesn: absolutely! anyone from WG can join any meeting

Isabel: cool, thanks!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/08/27 18:06:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/ask sarah/ask sarah higley/
Succeeded: s/maybe Kevin?/maybe Kevin Babbit?/
Succeeded: s/discuss with apple/discuss within Apple/
Succeeded: s/keep it 1.3/but let's keep discussion for later, move it to 1.3/
Succeeded: s/dicussion/discussion/
Succeeded: s/sounds editorial/matt, you raised this/
Succeeded: s/if not Sarah, Melanie?/if not Sarah Higley, Melanie Richards?/
Present: MarkMcCarthy pkra Joanmarie_Diggs carmacleod James_Craig Matt_King IsabelHoldsworth MichaelC
Regrets: HarrisSchneiderman JonGunderson ScottOHara GretaKrafsig CurtBellew
Found Scribe: MarkMcCarthy
Inferring ScribeNick: MarkMcCarthy

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]