00:12:19 RRSAgent has joined #aria 00:12:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-aria-irc 00:12:21 RRSAgent, make logs public 00:12:21 Zakim has joined #aria 00:12:23 Zakim, this will be WAI_PF 00:12:23 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 00:12:24 Meeting: Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference 00:12:24 Date: 26 October 2015 00:12:25 rrsagent, do not start a new log 00:12:43 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/Meetings/TPAC2015/ARIA 00:12:45 chair: Rich 00:13:01 Judy has joined #aria 00:13:22 Present+ Rich_Schwerdtfeger 00:13:31 Present+ JF 00:13:38 scribeNick: jnurthen 00:13:42 Kenny has joined #aria 00:13:55 jessebeach has joined #aria 00:14:01 present+ James_Nurthen 00:14:04 present+ Judy_Brewer, Markku_Hakkinen, Jason_White, Joanmarie_Diggs, James_Nurthen, John_Foliot, Mark_Sadecki, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Rich_Scwherdtfeger, Tzviya_Siegmn, Matt_King, Cynthia_Shelly 00:15:25 mhakkinen has joined #aria 00:15:40 JS: as long as we meet the charter requirments we will have the conversation as to what the expectations of memebership of both groups are 00:15:45 present+ Kenny 00:15:54 Can_Wang has joined #aria 00:15:57 JS: will deal with APA membership stuff on Friday 00:16:10 present+ Can_Wang 00:18:10 clapierre has joined #aria 00:18:28 00:18:47 RS: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/Meetings/TPAC2015/ARIA 00:19:00 TOPIC: ARIA 1.1 Test Harness and Exit Criteria 00:19:07 present+ Kenny_Zhang, Jesse_Beach, Wei_Wang 00:19:20 joanmarie has joined #aria 00:19:48 RS: working to get 1.1 complete in the next year. Trying to get a number of things done for ARIA 2. Also have a number of joint meetings with webapps etc. this afternoon for 2.0 00:19:56 RS: lets look at the exit criteris 00:20:02 mck has joined #aria 00:20:27 MC: for 1.0 what we did to test the spec was inttoduce a dependency on the UAIG 00:20:51 MC: the UAIG defiend how aria properties should map to APIs - simply tested that every mapping could be done in 2 places 00:21:16 MC: had to be 2 different mappings be is 2 user agents using 1 API, 1 user agent using 2APIs or 2 using 2 APIs 00:21:32 LJWatson has joined #aria 00:21:33 MC: the UAIG had a higher bar that needed 2 mappings to everythign in the guide 00:21:40 MC: now there are several API mappings 00:21:51 MC: and ARIA itself divided into modules 00:22:15 -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/CR-pub/aria/aria.html#sotd Draft CR Exit Criteria 00:22:27 MC: for 1.1 itself I have drafted some exit criteria for the status section. These will need to be negotiated with management before we go into the CR phase 00:22:32 MC: what i have said here is 00:23:32 wei_wang has joined #aria 00:23:51 Exit Criteria: The Protocols and Formats Working Group intends to exit the Candidate Recommendation stage and submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after documenting interoperable implementability of each feature. For each feature, passing test results in at least two different implementations will be documented. 00:24:01 MC: need to firstly make sure this works for us 00:24:40 MC: so for role=none we could say the HTML mapping defines how this maps to MSAA and edge supports this. If no one else has done it then could go the SVG mapping and find an implementation there 00:24:58 q? 00:25:28 song_jaeil_ has joined #aria 00:25:29 MC: the big catch is that the mappings themselves are rec track docs and they must have 2 implementations too 00:26:07 Sungmin_Jang has joined #aria 00:26:28 MC: could say we don;t worry about that for ARIA but need to come up with some wording that says that the mapping guides themselves do not need to meet their exit criteria for aria to meet it 00:27:18 MC: where gets shaky is that could test against a mapping that wasn't a rec and it then changes. We could argue that it was implementable so aria passes. We are not testing implementations just implementatabiolity 00:27:42 MC: running up against normative dependencies 00:27:51 MK: all part of the same working group though 00:28:14 MC: aria does not normatively depend on the mapping guides, only the other way round 00:28:36 MC: we still have to test against the mapping guides they just don't have to go togethr 00:28:48 MK: you can't use it unless they are both implemented 00:29:09 MC: if we don't do it this way then - if eveything can only go to rec together we will never get there 00:29:34 MC: aria can go to rec whenver even if other things aren't ready for rec 00:29:48 RS: 1st question - we don't have to retest what was in 1.0 00:29:56 RS: down to new or changed features 00:30:09 RS: now have a name computation spec which is separate 00:30:15 RS: going to have to test that 00:30:35 MC: had tested in 1.0 only have to test what has changed 00:30:50 MC: don't think we need to rerun them unless the test has changed 00:31:15 RS: there are palces - for example for SVG which will have to do its own name computation. I think that is up to SVG to test 00:31:42 MC: I need to look at the name computation spec - it may not be able to exit CR until other things do 00:31:56 MC: the spec itself has moved name computation out 00:32:26 MC: there is some host language specific stuff. We didn't test the host language specific stuff as it wasn't relevant to 1.1 00:32:31 ivan has left #aria 00:32:43 RS: SVG are replacing whole steps 00:33:02 RS: they have to look at the title 00:33:14 RS: name computation I wouldn't worry about for SVG 00:33:29 MC: going to take a careful writing up to sell it 00:34:35 q+ To ask Michael if he has concrete reasons to believe ARIA 1.1 cannot exit successfully based on Core AAM. 00:34:41 RS: 1. For ARIA we are not going to test name computation where the host language overrides our name computation 00:35:46 MC: looks like we are in a situation where aria says for the accname AAM and then that says to follow something else. Need to smooth that out 00:36:12 CS: the name AAM could say what is in the string and then the aria one just says that it needs to expose the string 00:36:37 RS: 1 caveat - didnt test UAI last time - we removed it from the spec saying would add it back in 00:36:54 CS: ew need to test UAI as edge doesn't have MSAA 00:37:05 CS: they were not tested 00:37:15 CS: the MSAA+UAI Express in IE11 will not change 00:37:35 CS: need to talk about the webdriver effort for automated testing of APIs 00:37:36 s/UAI/UIA/G 00:37:48 MC: for 1.1 only need to test what has changed 00:38:39 MC: webdriver spinup have been talking about for years so mustn't have a dependency on it 00:38:51 RS: do you want to test all of UIA for 1.1 00:39:05 CS: I have to test it anyway 00:39:11 RS: Jan at the latest for CR 00:39:21 CS: I will have had to have done it by then anyway 00:39:40 MC: don't want to make extra work. If you have the results in some format I will get them into our DB 00:40:20 -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/project (Not very accessible yet) ARIA timeline planning 00:40:46 RS: 2. we need to test Edge with UIA for the things that didn't work with IE in 1.0 00:41:25 RS: 3. we do not have to test features in HTML AAM or SVG AAM where they override the ARIA spec for name mappings 00:42:09 MichaelC has changed the topic to: ARIA FtF WebEx https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mb895b35a3166f32259b8797cc5c1e0cd code 647 066 012 ping MichaelC for passcode 00:42:13 RS: 4. We need to look really hard at the name computation spec to make sure it is understandable by browser vendors - then need to figure what is differnt from 1.0 so we can decide what to test 00:44:49 JB: a few years ago there was an expectation of very rigurous testing of everything. Once we estimated the cost it was too high especially for HTML5 00:45:12 JB: if you look at the HTML5 testing proposal they decided to exclude stuff that was up and running 00:45:30 JB: they put out a call for review with the things that they wern't going to test 00:45:41 JB: they had an exclusion which had a formal review 00:46:06 JB: you have a few rationale as to what you want to exclude - i suggest you write it down and put it out for review 00:46:23 JB: hopefully you will then have an estimate as to how much it will cost you 00:46:49 JB: you want to document what you are going to test and what it will cost to make sure you have something feasible 00:46:55 MichaelC_ has joined #aria 00:47:09 JB: if you do the time estimate in advance then it allows you to be realistic as to what you want to exclude 00:47:31 JB: every group I know who hasn't done a careful study of the amount of work has had serious suprises 00:47:47 JB: it will force you to be more conservative as to what you want to test 00:48:18 JB: you could back your exlusion list by saying that if you tested everyhting it would take far too long 00:48:31 JB: get a well informed proposal as to what you are going to test 00:48:40 RS: logistical issue 00:49:05 JB: you were saying you are going to have to do the testable statements first. you might want to do a pilot first 00:49:20 RS: I am concerned about doing that 00:49:39 CS: the delta is pretty small 00:50:06 RS: some was taxonomy changes to make things clear 00:50:12 MK: some will drive testing changes too 00:50:17 joanmarie has joined #aria 00:50:32 q? 00:50:33 RS: things like mapping of region with label etc. 00:51:07 MC: listing everything which is new or changed won't take too long and testable statements we know how to do now 00:51:17 RS: I would like to have everything ready to go by Jan 00:51:24 MC: need a feature freeze 00:51:33 RS: going to try to get closer there this week 00:52:06 RS: web components need somethign to ref content etc. so might need a 1.2.... 00:52:26 JD: wanted some clarification on the status of the document section. 00:52:45 JD: do you have a reason to believe that we are in danger of core aam not being sufficient 00:53:06 MC: don't have data either way. not so worried about core but more about technology specific mappings 00:53:12 jasonjgw has joined #aria 00:53:20 JD: talking about 1.1 through CR talking about core not the modules 00:53:47 JD: what I am wondering is that - if everyone buys it - so we really need the any any anys 00:54:13 MC: ARIA will depend on the core and accname mappings and in 1.0 also needed the html mappings 00:54:27 RS: need to make sure that what we have will work with AT 00:54:31 ack joanmarie 00:54:31 joanmarie, you wanted to ask Michael if he has concrete reasons to believe ARIA 1.1 cannot exit successfully based on Core AAM. 00:55:05 MK: don't remember from 1.0 - when are browser devs and AT vendors going to be asked to look at 1.1 - when do we recruit them and say these things are ready for you 00:55:23 MK: can't actually do the testing until they have actually done it 00:55:25 Sumio_Noda has joined #ARIA 00:55:36 MC: we have excluded ATs from our requirements in the past 00:55:45 Sumio_Noda has left #aria 00:56:06 MC: in terms of the right time to implement. sooner rather than later review is better from ATs 00:56:23 MC: would hate AT to tell us going to rec that things aren't going to work right 00:56:36 CS: think let off the hook to easy 00:56:52 MC: need to have said we have solicited wide review b4 CR 00:57:06 RS: can send to AT vendors at feature freeze 00:57:16 MC: "pseudo LC" 00:57:30 CS: will be getting feedback from MSFT and AAPL 00:57:51 RS: know NVDA have been working with mozilla 00:58:06 MK: Jamie was very concerned about a number of features 00:58:13 MK: they only have 2 guys 00:58:24 MK: at the right time we can talk about there concerns 00:58:39 MK: I would be happy to volunteer to work with AT vendors 00:58:59 MK: I haven't started conversations with AI Squared 00:59:05 -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/project DRAFT ARIA project plan 00:59:49 MC: as a slight tangent - project plan. A pseudo gantt chart showing how all our specs effect each other 00:59:57 MC: should go through this at another time 01:00:00 +1 to MichaelC_'s GANTT chart 01:00:22 RS: how are going to write testcases for everything 01:00:47 Q+ 01:00:51 RS: will be working with the SVG team - should have a meeting with Steve and group of editors to see how we can help them 01:01:00 CS: we have a dependency on them 01:01:12 JW: need to see if there are 2 implementations on each OS? 01:01:29 RS: no for each feature there need to be 2 not on each OS 01:02:23 CS: there are 3 APIs on windows and different browers use different ones so this is not achievable 01:02:34 MC: the mappings are a different thing 01:02:53 CS: they use different APIs 01:03:05 JW: thinking about the same APIs 01:03:14 CS: there is only 1 API on apple 01:03:20 RS: Chrome too 01:04:14 scribenick: cyns 01:04:16 q? 01:05:07 JF: I have some people at dq who may be able to help write tests 01:05:29 RS: do they know enough about api mappings? 01:05:44 JF: I think so 01:05:52 MC: John Gunderson has testers too 01:06:20 CS: I can do a UIA training with your people 01:07:05 JB: It would be great get a community of people who know how to do testing and create a pool of people 01:07:19 RS: test the web forward too 01:07:31 q? 01:07:31 RS: need people to work with steve and jason on html testing too 01:07:58 JB: Talk to John F about how he has done internal recruiting 01:08:33 kurosawa has joined #aria 01:08:33 RS: I'm hoping by next year we have aria, html and svg all at the same level so we can all be moving forward together. 01:09:10 RS: Is msft looking at svg? 01:09:33 CS: it's on the backlog, but farther down 01:10:09 RS: MC, please show project management plan 01:10:29 MC: still needs some work, including making it more accessible 01:10:54 MC: covers entire charter period 01:11:40 MC: anything we do to push ARIA out later will impact start of other work, like graphics ARIA 01:13:14 RS: Since SVG hasn't been implmented consistently across platforms, and SVG is trying to go out soon, first drop of Graphics ARIA will be very small. Otherwise it is too much for browsers. That might let the graphics module to come in a lot earlier 01:14:04 MC: if we move that earlier, it will overlap with other CR, so we should think about the consequences to our work flow 01:14:05 joanmarie has joined #aria 01:14:38 tzviya: dpub date is past 01:14:54 MC: want to go through and validate these dates afeter tpac 01:15:21 RS: I think dpub is ready to send out for tpac. why not push it out with all the other specs 01:15:23 aheu has joined #aria 01:15:54 RS: SVG-AAM expecting to do a heartbeat next month 01:16:24 MC: need to look at everything that is publishing next month and making sure it's doable 01:17:01 RS: need to say something about introductions and abstracts of svg 2 in ARIA 1.1 spec. 01:17:24 MC: need to do lightly, and not introduce a dependency 01:17:31 hagi4u has joined #aria 01:17:52 q? 01:18:07 ack JF 01:18:16 Break Time 01:27:03 jasonjgw has joined #aria 01:44:10 kurosawa has joined #aria 01:50:18 mhakkinen has joined #aria 01:52:50 mck has joined #aria 01:55:22 jamesn has joined #aria 01:56:41 Sumio_Noda has joined #ARIA 01:59:51 tzviya has joined #aria 02:02:56 DanielSohn has joined #aria 02:03:47 Can has joined #aria 02:05:05 Scribe: JF 02:05:24 RS: about to look at low-level issues 02:05:53 Topic: Action 1361 02:05:55 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1361 02:06:04 MarkS has joined #aria 02:06:17 Matt has a proposal he wishes to share 02:06:26 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/mck_applicationRole/aria/aria.html#application 02:06:59 will look at latest text 02:07:55 jessebeach has joined #aria 02:07:56 MCK: application role is... 02:08:00 different in a couple of ways 02:08:15 first, application is now a structure, before they had a wording of landmark region 02:08:22 moonhakdong has joined #aria 02:08:31 which was discussed previously and gained support 02:08:41 second paragraph is to make clear purpose of application role 02:08:57 somethng to be used when there is not an existing widget 02:09:17 aka roll-our-yown widget 02:09:28 then you could use applcation-role 02:09:44 RS: slightly confused - is it a structural role in the document, but is it a widget? 02:10:02 Sungmin has joined #aria 02:10:09 MCK: it could be. there is no need to use application role all of the time 02:10:17 jnurthen has joined #aria 02:10:32 the reason to use that is if you were creating a new type of widget 02:11:04 JW: you are saying it's a structural role, yet it doesn't seem to be a structural component - that it's a wdget instead 02:11:42 ShaneM has joined #aria 02:11:44 MCK: the point is to allow for new widget - therer is an example in the proposal 02:12:09 Rich reading example aloud 02:12:28 if anyone prefers the diff view it is here - https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/7593ebf363a11c7bc78a1c08dbfea76a31f7a77f 02:12:54 MCK: this was a new example to replace prior example 02:13:29 the point is to tell people the way application role has been used to date is taht it has been abused and over-use - creating more problems than solutions 02:13:31 mhakkinen has joined #aria 02:13:49 RS: it's an interaction area of a document taht has no existing role? 02:13:50 MCK correct 02:14:07 JW: concerned about having a catch-all attribute 02:14:17 MCK: we have that today, the point is that applicationroles today 02:14:52 where we have a landmark region that then becomes an application, and passes keyboard control to the Ua 02:15:02 strike that previous URI - https://github.com/w3c/aria/compare/mck_applicationRole 02:15:16 RS: concern is taht somebody creates a custom widget and then makes it an application 02:15:20 JW: shared concern 02:15:39 RS: what we could say 02:15:49 JN: we need a way to solve the roblem 02:16:19 when there is no aria role to do what it does, you need to say that the application is responsible for keyboard control, voicing context of focused items, etc. 02:16:22 JN: how is less important 02:16:39 RS: concern taht there is no semantics involved 02:16:47 sam__ has joined #aria 02:17:12 MCK: there is one bug on an aria- interactive thing - it is quite vague 02:17:30 RS: asks JN where it is being used 02:18:02 JN:we've used it on grids where we needed to create a custom grid widget, SVG charts (keyboard interactive), and a few others 02:18:06
BR has joined #aria 02:18:19 RS: for SVG, we have keyboard interaction s going in 02:18:37 JN: we need to tell the user more than just tab through 02:18:56 RS: suggesting we just declare this is an interactive area, don't steal keys 02:19:09 MCK: see this as a bridge to aria 2.0 02:19:26 RS: concern about calling it an application - it's a widget 02:19:42 MCK: getting hung up on the term application - and traditional definition 02:19:50 this isn't what we are talking about 02:20:13 when James uses it today, it's a control in an application - never applied to an entire page 02:20:39 in the grid example, we don't use role=grid, but instead the custom congtrol 02:20:53 JN: it's an author defined swwidget 02:20:57 RS; an authro defined custom widget 02:21:02 02:21:14 present+ Shane_McCarron 02:21:31 MCK: not advocating that this is the end-all and be-all, looking to plug a bucket 02:21:36 mhakkinen has joined #aria 02:21:56 people make a date-picker, and they wrap it with a role=application 02:21:58 JN: not perhaps the best example, that may be valid some times 02:22:15 MCK: it could be, but believe this way would be better 02:22:32 you could place this directly on the element iteself 02:22:38 JN: how, can only have single role 02:22:41 MCK: could have a role description 02:22:59 JN: issue is that applications cannot take aria-activedecendent for example 02:23:12 as a direct child - creates an extra level in heirarchy 02:23:28 MCK: right, this way the structure does not have to be controled by AT 02:23:42 JN: prefer an aria interactive approach 02:23:53 retains the semantics, and then just add something to it 02:23:57 RS: that is my concern as well 02:24:03 Judy has joined #aria 02:24:24 JN: this would be for more document semantics - i.e interactive lists 02:24:56 MCK: problem with taking a staic role and giving permission to turn a static role into interactive 02:24:57 feel this is straying from the point 02:25:28 MCK: goal: if I cannot deprecate application, then find a way to use it sanely 02:25:50 RS: 2 things attempted: 1- ensure taht there is no landmark 02:26:10 2- concerned when looking at SVG, don't want to call the whole thing an application 02:26:23 JN: if somebody wants this to be a landmark, then add taht 02:26:56 RS: if you were to lace this on a list, you would lose the structural value 02:27:00 s/lace/place 02:27:53 JW: issue around distinguish between browse mode and interaction mode 02:28:37 discussion around SRs tath don't have a browse mode - seems most do 02:29:19 JW: the problem is not browsing, but with key-strokes 02:29:23 RS: in ARIA 2 there will be author defined widgets 02:29:50 RS: concerned about application - application is a container of some sort 02:30:09 so for example, don't want to loose list semantics, but you want to also declare it is interactive 02:30:40 MCK: it's up to the AT to expose semantics when in focus mode 02:31:53 RS; you put role=application, then put inside it you put grid? 02:32:06 JN: no, that isn't the issue 02:32:31 JN: complex grids lack the ability to define the complexity 02:32:45 too much reliance of aria-owned, and the grid model, so we are forced to hand-code stuff 02:33:02 would use row if it worked properly 02:33:08 jinbyung_ has joined #aria 02:33:16 if there is a simple grid, we use grid, but for more complex grids we use application model 02:33:20 clapierre has joined #aria 02:33:50 MCK: this is not a long term solution 02:34:42 shun has joined #aria 02:34:58 RS; want to avoid having authors create a custom thing and then wrap it with application 02:35:19 JN: documentation on how to interct is an important requirement here 02:35:59 MCK: is the idea to document additonal focusable items taht may not be aria widgets 02:36:13 RS: that the behavior is different 02:36:31 MCK: the thing that is different is taht the interactivity is non-standard 02:37:29 02:40:23 Sumio_Noda_ has joined #aria 02:40:29 RS: will switch to James N's discussion, while Matt works on wording 02:40:43 scribeNick: Rich 02:40:48

Indicates that an element is the primary action which is intended to occur on the webpage or the section of the webpage. Generally, this would only be present if there is a different visual indication for the primary action.

02:40:48

A keyboard user would generally activate the primary action through use of the enter key, even if they are not focussed on the current control. Typically this is used for features such as the Next button in a Wizard, The Ok button in a dialog, or the Search action in a Search region.

02:40:48

Authors should ensure that there is only one primary action per distinct region of a page.

02:40:50 Topic: Primary button 02:41:07 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/624 02:41:08 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1736 02:42:39 Rich: we should not use the term region 02:42:53 Joanie: area would be a more appropriate term 02:43:22 Rich: we need to define in the context of what? 02:43:42 Jason: we need to know what keyboard interaction in a series of widgets 02:44:19 James: We need to indicate for a region as the primary action for that region 02:45:19 I'd like to get a question in here for James 02:45:39 q+ 02:45:50 Jason: should we have an IDREF and have selectors later 02:46:09 James: we may not know what the component of the container when it is being rendereed 02:46:15 ack jessebeach 02:46:23 cyns has joined #aria 02:46:40 jessebeach: We have interactive areas wher there is no interactive element 02:47:02 rich: So, would you put this on the container 02:48:12 Rich: I am concerned as to whether it is going to cause someone to purchase something 02:48:22 James: I don’t think that is for ARIA to solve 02:49:18 Rich: would this only be on buttons? 02:49:36 JamesN: this might be on links 02:50:10 jason: So if you were tryint to delimate the region. How would you know what IDREF to bind it too? 02:50:23 JamesN: many frameworks will not know 02:50:36 clapierre has joined #aria 02:52:51 Rich: could this be limited to the context of a form? 02:53:05 JamesN: Form or application 02:54:46 Joanie: The reason I care about this is I assume the screen reader user wants to know what the default action is 02:55:22 Matt: there is no screen reader user that makes intelligent use of this functionality 02:55:38 Matt: JAWS has a specific command to ask what the default button is 02:55:53 Matt: an assistive technology could make use of this 02:56:17 Jason: VoiceOver on OS 10 will tell you what the primary button is 02:57:44 Rich: Could we limit this to a Form Context for 1.1? 02:58:07 Matt: what about landmark? 02:59:11 Rich: Can we limit to the nearest immediate landmark? 02:59:29 Cynthia: what about Dialog? 02:59:38 Rich: yes, we would want it for Dialog 03:01:00 James: it would be good if there were not landmarks to appy the context to the page 03:01:22 James: if the UI designer has done their job it would be obvious. 03:01:46 matt: we are trying to spec. a way for an AT to determine the context based on what the author has designed visually 03:02:04 matt: unless we say the author must do something … 03:02:41 Sumio_Noda has joined #aria 03:05:04 MarkS: I don’t think we should have this on link 03:06:32 Rich: I don’t like it on links 03:06:42 Moon has joined #aria 03:07:22 Moonhakdong has joined #aria 03:08:07 Proposal: We will call it aria-primaryaction and it will be limited for use on buttons with landmark containers 03:08:23 or dialog 03:09:36 Proposal: We will call it aria-primaryaction and it will be limited for use on buttons with landmark containers or dialog containers. If it is placed on a button that is not within a landmark or dialog container it is considered to be an error. 03:10:55 Resolution: We will call it aria-primaryaction and it will be limited for use on buttons within landmark containers or dialog containers. If it is placed on a button that is not within a landmark or dialog container it is considered to be an error. 03:11:12 RESOLUTION: We will call it aria-primaryaction and it will be limited for use on buttons within landmark containers or dialog containers. If it is placed on a button that is not within a landmark or dialog container it is considered to be an error. 03:14:28 jasonjgw has joined #aria 03:19:14 rrsagent, make minutes 03:19:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-aria-minutes.html MichaelC 03:32:37 MichaelC has changed the topic to: ARIA FtF on break now WebEx https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mb895b35a3166f32259b8797cc5c1e0cd code 647 066 012 ping MichaelC for passcode 04:04:59 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #aria 04:09:45 clapierre has joined #aria 04:13:02 MarkS has joined #aria 04:17:26 LJWatson has joined #aria 04:20:15 tzviya has joined #aria 04:21:47 sam has joined #aria 04:21:50 ShaneM has joined #aria 04:23:08 kurosawa has joined #aria 04:25:17 mck has joined #aria 04:36:35 mhakkinen has joined #aria 04:45:28 jasonjgw has joined #aria 04:45:49 MichaelC has joined #aria 04:45:49 Judy has joined #aria 04:46:05 MichaelC has joined #aria 04:47:55 MichaelC has changed the topic to: ARIA FtF WebEx https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mb895b35a3166f32259b8797cc5c1e0cd code 647 066 012 ping MichaelC for passcode 04:53:43 scribenick: MarkS 04:54:03 Topic: ARIA 2.0 04:54:54