Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference -- 14 Jan 2016

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jan/0035.html

<MichaelC> if we learn otherwise, we´ll have to stop that practice too

<jamesn> scribe: jamesn

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jan/0035.html

Group-Wide Process for Consensus on Resolutions

RS: we reached consensus on feed role at TPAC

about a month later someone came in and said they had issues with it

how do we make sure people are aware of resolutions so they can weigh in on them

feed wasn't that big of an issue but I think we need a process

is the resolution process enough

should we take resolutions and put them up for a call for consensus

can't give a month as that is a long time

MC was looking at how we can extract resolutions from minutes

MC: requested enhancements to tracker for this
... but probably in a bucket which won't get anything done for a while

would need to look at other ways

maybe will get a tracker feature some day

JF: if we pass a resolution on a call suspect it is in the minutes.... if there are resolutions in a call, perhaps the scribe who sends out the minutes that there are resolutions in the minutes

RS: sounds like an option

MC: APA discussions were that the chair needed to do it

JS: CFC needs to go to the admin list not the public list

<mck> scribe: mck

RS: does that mean we have to author a formal CFC?

JS: We do not want public weighing on CFCs
... Chair would need to pull the resolutions out of the minutes and post them

RS: how long do we give?

JS: decision policy says 1 week for cfc

RS: Usually people with an objection are the ones who didn't attend
... How do we resolve that?

JS: read minutes

RS: Could take a very long time to resolve

MC: W3C is moving to teleconferences for decisions/discussion
... We have right to request use of a telecon

MB: Not sure traveling is always a valid excuse not to attend
... Difficult with CFC is that is hard to find time to read all the specs that come through.

MC: Most cfcs are very granular.
... sometimes they are larger, e.g., pub a doc

Joseph: sometimes multiple resolutions per call

separate cfc for each one?

JS: easy to do if we had a bot but may too much for a manual process

Joseph: often the resolution precedes the edits to the doc

RS: Can the cfc refer to the minutes

MC: Sometime pushback from people about having to read minutes

JS: If minutes are not clear, probably better to capture that early.

rs: they should have to read the minutes

js: if minutes are not clear, then it is something the group will stumble on

rs: what if I write up the cfc and get 2nd set of eyes on it?

jmc: can do that

js: not sure you have to write it up, just paste in that part of minutes

<JF> +1

MK: can we use the public objection process for late-raised objections?

JS: This approach may be worth considering
... explained the issue process
... what I like about the admin list approach and posting resolutions for cfc, is it gives a way to serve people who are not in a postion to participate in calls, perhaps b/c tz
... it gives something defined, written, and creates a good trail.

RS: Cynthia, if you can't make a call, and group makes a resolution on a decision, would appropriate thing be to post these decisions to the admin list?

cs: I like the approach where each cfc is in a separate e-mail, but a weekly mail with all the resolutions would be acceptable.

js: if the bots can do it, then they could be individual e-mails.

mc: discussion in apa, concern about people having to read the minutes.

but, I think reading min if you can not attend call, is important.

if you can't do at least that, then perhaps not a member in good standing.

rs: so put out in a resoutions in a cfc to admin list, the cfcs can refer back to the minutes.
... and there is a 1 week review period for each cfc.
... can we get that decision policy out for another review.

js: Michael, can we get that uri?

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy

mc: may need some modest updates based on this discussion.

rs: will need to vote on decision policy, Michael, do you need time to update the policy?

mc: there is at least one sentence that needs to be reworded; not sure there is more than that.

rs: can we have something to vote on in the next week?

mc: yes

<JF> +1 to Michael, and further I think Michiel's draft resolution works for me

Joseph: if we have a draft spec text related to a resolution, make sure the resolution includes the link.

RESOLUTION: The group resolved that we will post the resolutions for each individual meeting to the aria admin list with a brief summary and a link to the minutes of the meeting. Members have a week to respond to CfC's as per the decision policy.

RS: the decision policy draft will be available for review on the admin list prior to the next meting.

Scoping ARIA 1.1

rs: I will write an approach to managing scope and hsare with the group.
... There are some issues that we know aria 1.1 must address b/c how long it will be until aria 2.0.

Issues and action review

<clown> action-2004?

action-2004?

<trackbot> action-2004 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Create proposal for password role -- due 2016-01-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2004

<trackbot> action-2004 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Create proposal for password role -- due 2016-01-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2004

password role proposal

<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/password-role/aria/aria.html#password

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/2004

<MichielBijl> Related GitHub issue: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/166

<MichielBijl> +1

rs: rich liked something joanie wrote ...

mk: do we need to say a "type of"

<Zakim> cyns, you wanted to ask about tracker vs github issues

joanie: i could take an action to clean up that kind of language in the spec

jf: concerned about the wording that suggests a sscreen reader that may be silent when entering a pw

joanie: not saying a screen reader should be silent

jf: I was not reading as normative

is that a useful option, or should it say something different

bg: typically sr says something like * or bullet

jf: not saying we should specify what to do

mk: not sure we say anything about sr behavior

joanie: it is important that the authors make sure there are actual chars that line up with what's behind
... tyring to say that an sr should be able to do what it does in a native pw field

jf: agree

rs: can't specify sr behavior

but people want an idea of what behavior the role enables for AT

jf: Do not have issue with what is happening ... maybe we should say that sr shold mimic what they do in a native pw field

joanie: I will submit to some new text for review

<Zakim> clown, you wanted to ask when would an author not obscure the text?

<Zakim> fesch, you wanted to say amazon lets show your password, I like that option

joseph: i am objecting to the author should ... it should be an author must that authors reveal

Joanie: iw will address that

<JF> +1 to thanking Joannie

Review overdue actions

<clown> action-1380

<trackbot> action-1380 -- Léonie Watson to #presentation should mention aria-hidden vs presentation role on raster and vector images in relation to ACTION-1379 -- due 2015-09-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1380

action-1380?

<trackbot> action-1380 -- Léonie Watson to #presentation should mention aria-hidden vs presentation role on raster and vector images in relation to ACTION-1379 -- due 2015-09-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1380

<clown> For role="presentation" and aria-hidden="true" that states that if the host language treats the element as having no owned children in the DOM that it is treated as a single entity such as <img src="foo.svg">

rs: Joanie can you take it up now?

Joanie: No; this is not ready for me .... I do not yet know what to make it say.

<clown> <div role="presentation" aria-hidden-"true"> a whole bunch of other children </div>

<clown> that div becomes a single accessible object in the tree.

rs: have a table with role presentation and aria-hidden true ... what should happen?

Fred: what happened if a child in the table was a link?

joanie: you can't have a focusable element that is not exposed

rs: this has to do with svg and iframe stuff

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/2015/10/22-aria-minutes.html

Joanie: Rich, if you are the one who understands this, can you write the sentence?

joseph: this wording is meant for the presentation role definition

mk: this needs to be in agreement with 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 in AAM

<clown> action-1465?

<trackbot> action-1465 -- Shane McCarron to Or shane to fix default values in 1.1 respec -- due 2014-06-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1465

RS: Is the styling of default values currently addressed in the spec?

<clown> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/password-role/aria/aria.html#checkbox

joseph: not bolded now

rs: editorial issue; need to assign to you Joanie.

Joanie: this may be a duplicate action

<clown> action-1567

<trackbot> action-1567 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Fix inconsistencies in linking to glossary items -- due 2015-11-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1567

Joanie, look at action 1567

action-1567?

<trackbot> action-1567 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Fix inconsistencies in linking to glossary items -- due 2015-11-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1567

Joanie changing title of 1567 and making 1465 a duplicate

<joanie> action-1567

<trackbot> action-1567 -- Joanmarie Diggs to Fix inconsistencies in linking to glossary items -- due 2015-11-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1567

action-1489?

<trackbot> action-1489 -- Michael Cooper to Propose spec text to limit what aria attributes can be overridden by strong native semantics (e.g., aria-label and aria-labelledby) -- due 2015-11-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1489

<clown> action-1489?

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/track/actions/1489

<richardschwerdtfeger> https://www.w3.org/2014/07/21-aria-minutes#item05

Joseph: the question is whether or not aria should always win? aria-label perhaps, but what about aria-required, aria-autocomplete, etc.

- DRAFT -

Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

14 Jan 2016

Attendees

Contents

Group-Wide Process for Consensus on Resolutions

Scoping ARIA 1.1

Issues and action review

password role proposal

Review overdue actions

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output