Meeting minutes
New Issue Triage
spectranaut_: issue triage, need to audit rule for role none and presentation on a table and list element
spectranaut_: ARIA issue 2123, concerning pubcg, anyone know about this?
pkra: it has something to do with reading systems, would be beneficial to standardize, but I haven't been involved in recent discussions
spectranaut_: is there any ask from this WG?
pkra: i don't think so it seems like it's just for awareness
jamesn: agree, seems like an FYI but if someone wants to review it they can
New PR Triage
WPT Open PRs
spectranaut_: looks like there's one new PR, looks like melanie already looked at it
spectranaut_: maybe a few other folks could look at it and then we can get it merged
scotto: let's look at the other one there are open questions
spectranaut_: ok new namefrom: heading tests for accname
scotto: I've already provided a lot of feedback on this general topic due to all the different PRs that have to be opened
scotto: there are like five open PRs about the issue so it's kind of confusing to keep track, I suggest folks check their notifications and provide feedback
spectranaut_: so noting that nothing is passing from those tests
spectranaut_: seems like he's documenting a direction that he wants the browsers to go
jamesn: can someone explain in plain language what IDDFS and DFS differences are?
scotto: name from heading could either go down the DOM and get the name from that, or do something different and only look for heading in certain contexts
<TheoHale> yes, I think the motivation is performance. The downside is it doesn't work for valid HTML.
jamesn: does this mean it will check all the immediate children and then if it doesn't find it, go looking elsewhere?
jamesn: this needs to be an agenda item for next week, I really don't understand this
(general agreement)
Deep Dive planning
spectranaut_: let's have some notes first before we schedule the deepdive, do you have those mel?
I can have them by next week
jamesn: who _needs_ to attend?
BGaraventa: james C, is pretty important as an implementor
jamesn: week after next should probably be okay
spectranaut_: okay (commented in issue); tentatively scheduled it for the 29th
spectranaut_: ok these other deep dive issues, "title should not contribute to accName for generic elements"
I don't remember what I was thinking about it in November so I'll have to re-visit before we schedule a deepdive on it, it seems reasonable and we should just do it
scotto: different opinions on it, that's probably why
spectranaut_: ok let's look at this aria-hidden updates one
scotto: some of this has been superceded by other work, but it could still be valuable to have more discussion on it
jamesn: we don't need a deepdive probably we could do it as an agenda topic
spectranaut_: we have one other deepdive pending, accname issue about name traversal
scotto: I did a write-up on it and put in a proposal, sorta don't want to do a deepdive on it bc I'm not sure a re-hash would be helpful
spectranaut_: I agree, the summary is good and perhaps it just needs WG consensus
spectranaut_: we'll agenda it, maybe that's all we need
<Francis_Storr> this one? w3c/
spectranaut_: yes this is the one
spectranaut_: please everyone, read this
<spectranaut_> please read scott and jame craig's proposal: w3c/
Callout element feedback
scotto: Need other folks to read through this and provide feedback, it would be good to have a unified response based on past experiences
aardrian: I have opinions
<TheoHale> I have opinions on a personal level, I don't really understand what we are doing and why.
jamesn: the reason I haven't given feedback on this is that I don't find it particularly useful. It seems like one of these things that someone wants a new element for a reason, but I can't figure out what problem they're trying to solve
jamesn: I don't think it will help accessibility adding it but I don't think it will harm it either. seems like a noop for us
<spectranaut_> ack \
jamesn: seems like not an important a11y problem
pkra: when I looked at this previously, i felt like the discussion around types and yet-another-dictionary with semantic implications seems not useful when we already have roles
pkra: sorta reminds me of issues with roledescription, so it just seems odd
pkra: from the dpub side there are already several ways that we can handle this issue, seems like it would be "yet-another-section-element"
aardrian: broadly I think this is poorly specified and doesn't provide an AT user use-case and is conflating concepts. It's also relying on pattern libs that often have conflicting approaches to this.
aardrian: needs to evaluate what already exists, where there is overlap, etc. My inclination would be to discuss different types of sections but probably kick this one out
TheoHale: it isn't clear to me how this would be useful to users with AT but I was hesitant to give an opinion because I wasn't sure if I was missing something
TheoHale: if I understood the case maybe I could be swayed but I just don't from what I read
Matt King: +1 to everything aardrian said. If they want to do this, map it to a generic IMO.
Matt King: an issue I see is that the SR user wouldn't know where the callout content ends but that could be an author issue
Matt King: it's conflating concepts that are not semantically equal so I just can't see a strong case for this
CoryJoseph: echoing the group mind at this point, this is overly-broad at best and potentially dangerous at worst due to lack of definition
CoryJoseph: too much room for interpretation
spectranaut_: sounds like we have some group consensus here
scotto: this is validating. follow-up question, do we want to counter propose a note element to compliment the note role?
aardrian: no.
<CoryJoseph> A+
aardrian: authors already have section-itis and this will confuse them even more
Matt_King: wait do we need to counter propose? I thought this element was already happening and we were just being asked to weigh in?
scotto: I can take the feedback and let them know, we just don't think this element is necessary
Matt_King: my worry is that they will then say "oh let's just make it a note element then" and it will annoy us and not help us
jamesn: +1 to what everyone has said, we don't need it, not a good idea
CoryJoseph: as a generic it's too broad, but in the last few months my team has been doing research on handling footnotes (e.g., modal? list at the bottom of the page?)
<TheoHale> couldn't that be noted inline via the annotation stuff from aaron?
CoryJoseph: is there room for some kind of simple, attached, note kind of element? maybe if it's very very strict
pkra: I would like to stress that we could point to the existing dpub work that has done a lot of creation of roles that didn't end up helping users as a cautionary tale, to help explain why we would push back on this approach
pkra: we don't even have time to make existing dpub roles useful (via working with AT), would like to see that happen
spectranaut_: so to reiterate, it seems like we have working group consensus; scotto do you have what you need?
scotto: I have what I need
<pkra> dpub discussions / changs: w3c/
Add steps for shadow roots and slots
spectranaut_: are we ready to land this?
jamesn: does it have wpt tests?
spectranaut_: yes it has tests, and there are a couple of implementations so I think it can land
spectranaut_: there's a merge conflict but I think it can be resolved
jamesn: I can look at the merge conflicts unless Melanie wants to do it
I wouldn't be able to get to it until next week so if you can before then please do
(agreement)
Consider a mechanism to associate controls without an explicit grouping
spectranaut_: what needs to be done here?
scotto: I didn't come away from this thinking that ARIA needs to do more here, so I think it's okay
jamesn: do we just close it if there is nothing more for us to do?
Matt_King: I don't see links to the minutes from the last discussion on this
jamesn: a couple comments up there's a link to the meeting notes
Matt_King: k I remember the conversation about it and I felt like this would promote things that are really bad for accessibility.
spectranaut_: ok well, scotto if you can read through it and determine if it's closeable please
Align ARIAMixin with changes in HTML
spectranaut_: I think this one is mergeable
spectranaut_: I think we can land the suggested changes and I will resolve the merge conflicts and get this PR merged