Meeting minutes
https://
Harris: I can volunteer to refactor out jQuery
https://
jamesn: 1.4
https://
Should just be merged into #995
https://
https://
joanie: It needs tests and UA agreement
https://
jamesn: Is this editorial enough that I can merge this?
jcraig: Do we need to define containing? No, it's ok.
jamesn: User actions next week
jamesn: accname not on the deep dive agenda yet... just user actions #2
Changing minutes from email to github?
jamesn: considering storing meeting minutes in GH. any objections?
carmacleod: no pref
Matt_King: easy to find with a wiki page
Jemma: +1 to github
jamesn: could also send an email link to GH page
carmacleod: does W3C have a req for minutes?
jamesn: no w3c req
still using zakim, but new bot to cross reference them to GH
jcraig: chair's prerogative as long as it's accessible. but I also think it's a good idea
carmacleod: could also work into future idea of using auto-generated transcript
zakim. next item
Privacy Statement<https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues >
<carmacleod> https://
Detectability of assistive technology #1371
jamesn: not a blocker to 1.2 (consensus and agreement from OP)
propose that we add a privacy section before wide-review draft of 1.3
meet in ARIA prior to joint meeting with Privacy group, prior to drafting the new section
Jemma: +1
carmacleod: +1
also review Leonie's comment in design principles: "that principle 2.7 from the TAG WebPlatform Design Principles](https://
<Jemma> https://
Matt_King: will other specs get accessibility mentions in other specs..
jamesn: likely, yes
MichaelC_: could get WHATWG to include it too...
Accname & self-reference aria-labelledby<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0000.html >
related to this Chromium issue: https://
Bryan G's harness and the 3 major browsers all differ in their results... unfortunate.
Matt_King: the algorithm seems out of sync with _that_ example
carmacleod: pointed out that Firefox is wrong. everyone agrees that it should be choice a in example referenced:
https://
<jamesn> If traversal of the current node is due to recursion and the current node is an embedded control as defined in step 2E, ignore aria-label and skip to rule 2E.
Aaron L referenced AccName 2E (quoting here in prior line)
so dispute between Options A and B
Aaron contending the value should replace aria-label
joanie mentioned if you read recursion the way Aaron is, you would end up with a different result entirely
Matt_King: I feel like the spec if clear, but the algorithm is hard to read
msumner: what do users prefer?
jamesn: or what did the author intend?
bryan: current node can't include itself (as root node) so it excludes itself... remove that and it will always include the value with every change...
Matt_King: how does the self referencing example work
Bryan: it doesn't.. we need an explicit exclusion for self-referencing items
jamesn: which step that includes total accumulated text cannot re-reference themselves
Bryan: states later that nodes (strings?) can only be included once
jamesn: that note is specific to its own section
Bryan: total accumulated text refers to the total for the root node in the algo
"up to but not including the current node" how that that be if its not the current node? the current node has moved at the point of dispute.
carmacleod: we need to decide is the example should work, and then determine changes... I did not find an elegant way to do this. anyone else?
Bryan: we should add an exclusion
jcraig: propose Bryan take assignment of the issue
Action: jamesn to file issue and assign to bryan
<carmacleod> regrets