Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference -- 07 Dec 2017

<joanie> agenda: this

<joanie> agenda: be done

<joanie> agenda order 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8

<janina> scribe: janina

Advancing to Rec

jd: aria, dpub-aria, dpub-aam all going to rec
... Believe apg advancing to note
... Pub will be 14 December
... core-aam is next agendum

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2017Dec/0000.html (closes 8 December)

jd: Notes this closes Friday. Please review!

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2017Nov/0017.html (22 November)

jd: e-champaigne all around!

The situation with Core AAM

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2017Dec/0000.html

jd: everyone should read the above message sent to the list

we have an unintended dependency on AccName from Core-AAM

it was an oversight, there was wording to ¨see also¨ in AccName but it was done in normative language

Director noticed during transition review, after AC review closed

initially told us we needed to go back to CR for that spec

but I looked and observed there´s no new information, no new tests

yet going back to CR could have a triggered a new 60-day patent exclusion opportunity

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2017Dec/0080.html

which is process hold-up without much value

I was able to get agreement that the patent exclusion window wouldn´t be required

but then did further explanation of what happened

and made plan that we will send message to AC members who voted on the spec

asking them if the proposed change would change their review comments

the changes are detailed in the pull request https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/679

we gave them until 12:00 pm Boston time on Wednesday 13 December 2017 to respond

we don´t expect objections (fingers crossed), in which case we should be able to go to Rec

jg: does AC rep need to do anything?

jd: if there are no concerns, no reply required

nobody is allowed to drink Champagne or other celebratory drinks until after this clears next week

Reminder: Authoring Practices CfC

jd: discussed under first agendum above

Editor's Draft for ARIA 1.2

<joanie> https://w3c.github.io/aria/

<janina> scribe: janina

jd: Note this is our ARIA-1.2 Editors Draft
... Also worked on insuring nonpertinent error msgs not exposted to AT
... Also, we now have automated snapshots

mk: So, can work on validation errors in apg!
... aria-extended on menu items is blocking html validation
... Would like to remove the "ignore" notes, but what to do?
... Plan A will be to get clear with publication request
... Please help me compose the explanation
... So, do we need a Plan B?

mc: This is one reason I want to send the pub request tomorrow, if possible, but no later than Monday

mk: Believe we've always had issues related to new ARIA features

jn: Yes
... Asks whether validation checks subdirs where the examples are

mc: No, so no issue

jd: So, is APG good to go? About to be good to go?

mk: Yes

Sanity-checking aria-expanded

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/681

jd: should probably have made it a numbered list ...
... we support expanded on everything
... Need for authoring to review: yes/no
... MK, can you take the action?

mk: yes

<bgaraventa1979> +q

<joanie> Need to sanity check roles which support aria-expanded

mk: I'll pull together our discussion

bg: Wondering about tab panel which isn't exposed if not expanded

mk: Good item for discussion
... Birker asked about checkbox use case

<jongund> JB: I can scibe

<scribe> scribe: janina

Using github projects for new workflow

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects

jd: Looking at borrowing this approach from apg ...
... Looking whether this approach might work

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects/2

[joanie explaining the work flow]

mk: Notes need to track colab with AT vendors

jd: Noting the repeating tasks that should be auto supported ... not finding

mk: also had that interest

jd: there is a github pi, will try to make a tool for us

[discussion of github]

Static (née text) role

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects/1

jd: We next need wg approval

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/tree/role-static

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

jd: So we should consider
... First branch, second to role in spec

jn: We need approval for static, or can't do 1.2

jd: Think this is different, vague recollection
... Concern about flattening to plain text
... Please consider so we can discuss

Next meeting date

jd: I am unable 14 Dec
... Propose 4 Jan

[crickets]

Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

07 Dec 2017

Attendees

Contents