<Joshue> Surveyed: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc22April2014/
<JF> scribe: JF
zakim: take up item 1
Josh: there seems to be some dissonance on where we are sitting, can Andrew please explain?
AWK: attempting to figure out where this applies to
Haven't had the time to discuss in depth
not much hope of finishing it
Josh: are we done with the main issues with it?
were there any solid take-awways from last week?
looking at survey for this at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc22April2014/results#xnewregio
LGR: don't think we made it all the way through comments
Josh: general feeling is that this is a good technique
needs some tweaks and finding a home for it - which success criteria does it relate to?
<Loretta> I don't think we decided about labels at all.
AWK: one open question - is there a scenario when a region would NOT require a label?
spec says to name a region is to associate something to it
LGR: regions such as paragraphs do not require a name - this is for naming interactive regions
MC: this is constrained to things that have state, and can change
LGR: we should have a WBS to get discussion
MC: the spec *could* be interpretted to see a paragraph as a control, it seems to be a stretch
Josh: for the purposes of this - does this straddle 1.3.1 and/or 4.1.2? (JF hopes he has these numbers correct)
KHS: will agree with Loretta for this as on an interactive control
(+1 to KHS from JF)
MC: fairly certain that Greg would have a clear recollection of this
Sailesh: believe it does relate to an interactive control
but what about a frame? also related
Josh: will add to agenda for next week
AWK: in comparing this to Aria 11 - maps to 1.3.1 and 2.4.1
doesn't specifiy in the test procedures that it requires a name
if you identify the region (i.e. with a landmark), then you have met requirement
so we could be more specific: make sure area is marked up with region
sailesh: two comments - landmarks are usually generated - generally unique.
LGR: may want to have a technique for a region (not neccessarily a landmark)
Josh: yes, I wanted to look at this further
for something that doesn't need or have an ARIA landmark - then I would want to label it with something
Josh: while ARIA spec is explicit, we want to ensure that it is writ large in the techniques
<AWK> Suggest change from: It is important to name the region using a technique like aria-labelledby that references a heading for the region. The heading may be marked up with h<n> tag or role=heading
there may be times when, in the abscence of a suitable heading, that aria-label could be used to generate a useful name
<AWK> to: It is important to name the region using a technique like aria-labelledby that references a heading for the region or by providing a name using aria-label.
AWK: don't have a strong feeling whether this Must or not include a name piece
we can go either way
Josh +1 from me
Wilco: wond3ring for 1.3.1 - is if you are communicating structure as well - to indicate the relationship to the larger site/page
LGR: agree with providing suggestions on how to label regions
want to be careful that we don't limit the way it can be done
Josh: good point
but, the describption is incomplete - AWK's text just briefly mentions it
<AWK> New suggestion: It is important to name the region using aria-labelledby, aria-label, or by other means.
LRG: believe there should be suggestions, but just to be careful
Sailesh: agree; ARIA specs also mention aria-heading
Josh: looking to recap
wish to +1 Andrews text
LGR: the one thing I am thinking is that we have had a lot of discussion on labeling regions - we should be sure we have that captured
Josh: any objections to AWK's suggested text?
Wilco: could it be that there are scenarios where the label *is* required?
Josh: generally speaking, all these controls/regions should be lableled with something
<Loretta> It is important to name regions, because they are generic grouping elements and users will need some way to tell which region they are in. Regions can be named using a technie like ...
AWK: suggest that either Sailesh or myself re-group comments and then re-present
Josh: would like to try and get this resolved today, never to be re-opened (smile)
LGR: provided an alternative text
Josh: then perhaps we should take this off and refine off-line
Sailesh: there is one other comment. The sentence that starts with "screen readers that support..." should be removed - not accurate anymore
Josh: confused now - thought region roles where treated like landmarks
suggest that you guys take off-line for polish and will review next week
<AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
<AWK> s/leave open/leave open for Sailesh to adjust technique based on discussion
Josh: updated response based on feedback
Josh: asking for review and final discussion (if required)
... any objections to accepting the response?
AWK: do we want to say that you never need to use ARIA?
LGR: dangerous to say you must always use ARIA
AWK: goes both ways
MC: depends on what technology you are using, and what you want to accomplish
<Joshue> JF: I'm concerned about using MUST etc, would rather be excplicit on requirements and leave it up to the authors discretion.
JF: clarrification on my point - I do not like to be explicit on the means of achieving the requirement(S)
AWK: like that better
<Joshue> - ARIA11 is documented as a sufficient technique for SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.1 and like most techniques, it is not the only way for passing these SC.
RESOLUTION: accepted as ammended
Josh: suggestion to leave this one open
this should be on you Wilco
know that you are happy with this, but not sure if WG is aware
Wilco: yes, I am happy
MC: need to describe what we did in the response
... we just need a clean public record
RESOUTION: leave open for now
Josh: any objection to the respnse?
RESOLUTION: accepted as is
Josh: Andrew had a comment
this is a general technique
AWK: the example is similar in the ways that are needed for H:90 - is redundant, doesn't add anything to H:90
there are 2 approaches - make this a general technique without HTML example on how to do
James, appeared to be in agreement, but then asked why not just leave the HTML (for HTML use)
not fussy - can go either way
Josh: any objections to what AWK proposed?
JF: leaving in code is helpful to some
<Joshue> JF: Theres nothing wrong with leaving the HTML there.
MJ: adjust the example, but remove the color piece - take andrews re-tweak of the example, but leave the HTML
RESOLUTION: make the description slightly more generic, but leave the example code in - AWK to make the changes
Josh: this technique should be generalized
MJ: saw two ways of going with this - provided both for discussion
Josh: what are we doing with this?
MJ: what it comes down to is that it should be general enough - do we make this a general technique? or option 2 - keep as a specific CSS technique - if that is the case we need to update the testing technique
AWK: all of the examples are using CSS - yes, we could make it general but there is so much CSS
we should modify the test procedures
<AWK> Instead #2: Check that the control changes the presentation by modifying individual CSS style properties or by activating an alternate style sheet.
Josh: a lot happening in the examples
... AWK, you were the only one to comment extensively - not sure what to do next
AWK: my suggestion is to go with option 2 - make the linkage between test procedure and presence of CSS more direct
(JF +1 to AWK)
RESOLUTION: accepted as ammended
Josh: noting different TFs out there - hope to have updates from these different groups over the next weeks
was hoping to have Lisa here this week - deferred to 2 weeks from now
Josh: things continuing ast pace - a few weeks left before the deadline
any concerns? anyone want to take on more (or sign up)?
AWK: reviewing the list earlier - if you scan far column
pretty solidly incomplete - not sure if folks are working and not updating (that's OK)
but ultimately we want to use this to tgrack where we are at
there have been some times on Thursdays when others have joined
tried to set a low bar - 2 techniques
but if we lack the bandwidth, then we need to figure that out
Josh: we are here to help
Wilco: want to ask/add that has been working on a11y support db at W3C
to see if there are some tests that could be added - if anyone is interested drop me a note
<Loretta> thanks, Wilco!
Kathleen: question around process - what happens next? I have things on personal web site that are linked. Will taht be copied to a W3C space?
Josh: can leave it there as long as you want - we might want to pull it into the actual wiki
MC: we WILL take the code examples and host internally at W3C - need to review if that is set to go
AWK: if you are using GitHub then the examples are up there in a seperate directory
Michael is working on getting that rendered as HTML
Kathleen: I know there is a per-person/per-day fee
(group seems to believe it is ~$50 / day)
<MichaelC> TPAC 2014
AWK: asking about PF schedule
JN: prefer that we do not conflict with PF's schedule
... think we were looking at Thurs/Fri for PF
JF: I believe taht PF did agree with Thurs/Fri
MC: we are expected to have agenda figured our in advance - know that some will have split loyalties
Josh: will finalize date soon enough
... looks like that is it
AWK: any further comments?
<AWK> Scribe: AWK
JN: planning to have the Thursday techniques meeting 4pm ET
... Not many techniques to discuss yet