W3C

- DRAFT -

Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference
14 Oct 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
janina, Michael_Cooper, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets
Jon_Gunderson
Chair
Rich
Scribe
janina

Contents

<trackbot> Date: 14 October 2013

<richardschwerdtfeger> meeting: make log public

<richardschwerdtfeger> RRSAgent: make log public

<richardschwerdtfeger> meeting: W3C WAI-PF ARIA Caucus

<MichaelC> Meeting: Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference

<richardschwerdtfeger> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Oct/0015.html

<scribe> scribe: janina

UAIG

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testreport?testsuite_id=2

rich: Saw event sequencing problems with tests 85, 86 & 87
... Suggest we move these to "should"

michael: Were these tests where James wanted Safari excluded?

rich: State change follows selection change on these
... And on 69 we have owns of an owns, etc
... Not real world
... 69 & 71
... 70 passes

michael: 71 seems contrived; 69 is similar conceptual to another
... Does seem to reflect how we expected ARIA-Owns to work
... A strange abstraction ...
... So, we're testing posinset ...

<richardschwerdtfeger> If all items in a set are present in the document structure, it is not necessary to set this attribute, as the user agent can automatically calculate the set size and position for each item. However, if only a portion of the set is present in the document structure at a given moment, this property is needed to provide an explicit indication of an element's position.

michael: So, if in doc only via ARIA-Owns, its not part of the structure?

rich: yes

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/612

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/08-aapi-minutes#item01

<richardschwerdtfeger> EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE on newly focused item, but arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcements

rich: Instead, say:

<richardschwerdtfeger> EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE on newly focused item. User agents SHOULD arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcements

rich: Above msaa, here's at-spi

<richardschwerdtfeger> ATK/ATSPI currently:

<richardschwerdtfeger> object::selection_changed but arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcement

rich: could be

<richardschwerdtfeger> object::selection_changed. User agents SHOULD arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcement

michael: I'm OK

<MichaelC> ACTION: clown to Add RFC2119 SHOULD statements to UAIG #mapping_events_selection regard event arrangement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-pf-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1273 - Add rfc2119 should statements to uaig #mapping_events_selection regard event arrangement [on Joseph Scheuhammer - due 2013-10-21].

<MichaelC> action-1273: For example, ¨EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE on newly focused item, but arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcements¨ becomes ¨EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE on newly focused item. User agents SHOULD arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcements¨

<trackbot> Notes added to action-1273 Add rfc2119 should statements to uaig #mapping_events_selection regard event arrangement.

<MichaelC> action-1273: For example, ¨object::selection_changed but arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcement¨ becomes ¨object::selection_changed. User agents SHOULD arrange events so state change does not occur on focused item, to avoid extra selection change announcement¨

<trackbot> Notes added to action-1273 Add rfc2119 should statements to uaig #mapping_events_selection regard event arrangement.

<MichaelC> action-1273: note that the wording is confusing because conditions against the action are explained after the action rather than before

<trackbot> Error adding a comment to: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

<MichaelC> action-1273: note that the wording is confusing because conditions against the action are explained after the action rather than before

<trackbot> Error adding a comment to: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

<richardschwerdtfeger> EVENT_OBJECT_SELECTION then EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE on newly focused item.

<MichaelC> action-1273: note that the wording is confusing because conditions against the action are explained after the action rather than before

<trackbot> Error adding a comment to: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

<MichaelC> action-1273: note that the wording is confusing because conditions against the action are explained after the action rather than before

<trackbot> Error adding a comment to: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

<richardschwerdtfeger> object::selection_changed then object:state-changed

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Accessibility/AT-APIs/AT-SPI/Events

<richardschwerdtfeger> object:selection-changed

<richardschwerdtfeger> object:selection-changed then object:state-changed

<richardschwerdtfeger> http://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/atspi/adoc/atspi-events.html

<MichaelC> action-1273: note that the wording is confusing because conditions against the action are explained after the action rather than before

<trackbot> Error adding a comment to: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

incomplete test cases

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testreport?testsuite_id=2

michael: still 19 cases without test files
... jg was to fill in additional testable statements
... jg's unable to do soon, i looked at these friday
... see fewer gaps than i thought

michael Suggest we walk this through UAIG call Tuesday

michael: 40 & 41 are ones I didn't know what to do re test files

rich: just to tab-index = 0, -1, etc

michael: test case creation we should move to uaig call group ...
... starting email to clown

<MichaelC> Testable statements still needed for UAIG: look for @@ in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/ARIA/Tests/Testable_Statements#User_Agent_Implementation_Guide_Testable_Statements

<MichaelC> some of the @@ are information we need to fill in based on work done in UAIG since these were written

<MichaelC> some are cross references to existing tests that just need to be linked

<MichaelC> MC to change those to ## so they´re not confused with the ones that need to be examined

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: clown to Add RFC2119 SHOULD statements to UAIG #mapping_events_selection regard event arrangement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-pf-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-10-14 15:15:59 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/changes/change/
Succeeded: s/pos and set/posinset/
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Default Present: janina, Michael_Cooper, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Present: janina Michael_Cooper Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Jon_Gunderson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Oct/0015.html
Found Date: 14 Oct 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/14-pf-minutes.html
People with action items: clown

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]