Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference -- 08 Mar 2018

<joanie> agenda: this

<joanie> agenda: be done

Reminder: Daylight Saving Time and next week's meeting

<inserted> scribe: jongund

JD: Next week the meeting changes, it will be an hour earlier

MC: 1 hour earlier

JD: Just for next week

Face-to-face 1 May - 3 May, Toronto

<joanie> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Spring_2018

JD: Confirmed dates and times
... Mostly topics I want and topics that Matt wants
... Add your items to the wiki
... If you are planning or not planning on coming please use the wiki

MC: We do a web based survey usually

JD: What MC said, please make ASAP

MC: I am setting up the survey now

JD: I am new to the planning event, thank you MC for doing the survey
... Any other questions?

ARIA in HTML and HTML AAM reviews

<joanie> https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/publish/index-CR-20180215.html

JD: There are some web platform specs we need to look at/review

<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2018Mar/0009.html

JD: We are being acsked to review it
... APA is asking, the goal is to maximize accessibility
... It is mostly about authors and conformance checking
... I am hoping that the APG look at this

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say PLH is on the phone for this topic

JD: and when

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to clarify

Phillipe: There is a request to move document to CR

Pilliipe: Tell us it is fine, that would be good, if not what needs to be changed

Phillipe: If there are problems, we need to know, it may not block the document, because it is late in the process

JD: We should use the que for this

Stefan: When I scan the document, I have no idea of the long history of this document, were ARIA wG members a part of creating the document
... Picture has no corresponding role, so where do we ask questions?

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to help on the origin

Phillipe: My understanding is this use to be part of HTML, and it was split for some reason, I don't know why

<janina> Was split away because there was desire to modularize html, as I recall

Phillipe: If you have comments or questions, use the GitHub issues

<MichaelC> 1) Does ARIA WG want to (re-)review ARIA in HTML? 2) How long would it take? 3) Does the ARIA WG think the spec should wait on that review before it advances to CR?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to break down questions and to explain HTML AAM part of question

Phillipe: I want to know what I need to tell the director?

MC: Does the ARIA want to review ARIA in HTML?
... How long will it take for the review?
... Does the spec need to wait for the review

JD: I think the answer is based on the APG can do it
... I don;t want to penalize them but our delay in review it
... If we are going to review we need to do it immediately

<mck> /me, jon how about i take over at end of topic

MC: I don't think we messed up, we just delivered less than ideal

<bgaraventa1979> +q

MK: I don't have time right now do to my schedule, CSUN and vacation
... the importance is based on the changes form the last review, conformance with ARIA 1.1 ..

Phillipe: It is about how not to use ARIA, if we stop this it will damage ARIA

<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask about testing

JD: I have not seen on the chairs list, they do not plan to test

Phillipe: They are mostly negative tests, basically you do not do this
... Should we test we do not get an invalid mapping

JD: How error mapping is mapping

MC: Listed specs where test would come from

JD: Is it Mike Smith that writes the validator, he often finds problems in ARIA and files bugs

BG: I can actually do a review next week, I think it is important
... I can reply to the list

JN: I think we should do it, but I don't have time

JG: I will try to review if by next week

Stephen: This seems to be an important for the rules

Stefan: You can have the impression reading this document, you never need to use ARIA at all
... There is a lack of completeness, do we form a common report, or should we report separately

JD: Leonie is a github fan

Phillipe: I recommend that you put issue on GitHub

JD: Stefan, the spec is about things you can't do, that the validator needs to flag it

Stefan: You need to understand ARIA to read this document..

Phillipe: I did not read it that way, it is not to define the roles

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to give an example

Phillipe: I will give you an example, you can use any ARIA role on a table, we find that strange

Stefan: This document should describe proper role mappings
... It seems gird should be aloowed

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about ¨official review¨ and to mention upversions

<mck> scribe: mck

mc: one thing we are being asked is whether we want an official wg review. do we want a process for that?

<jongund> MC: Ok, official review, is it a working group review, or just individual reviews

or do we just want to separately put issues in github?

<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to say why not use another role on a table? :) and to also say that what Stefan is saying sounds like authoring practices

mc: specs can be upversioned. issues we file could be in a future version.

<jongund> MC: If we file issues, they may be considered in a future version

jd: I like michael's up versioning idea b/c we are so late in the game.

<jongund> JD: I like MC up versioning, since we are this late in the game

if I was chair and blocked this late in the game, I would not like that. I would be understand but not like it.

<jongund> JD: Why not turn table into a button, it sounds like a bad thing, but if the browser does things reight will it be that bad

jd: I also want to say that we need to be careful not to be overlimiting. I can imagine that there might be a situation where someone could use button on table. if authored correctly, why not.

if it is best practice to do that could be addressed in practices rather than in spec.

<jongund> JD: If it is bad practice to put button on table, that should be part of APG

<jongund> JD: We risk holding up a spec, on issues that should not be part of the spec

stefan: I hear you. it may be best practices related. but still valuable if spec authors ask questions to this group when it is not clear.

<jongund> Stefan: When people ...

<jongund> Phillipe: the WG does not have any questions, they just want to move to CR

phillipe: that do not have questions for this group. they are requesting review to see if we have questions or comments for them.

<jongund> scribe: jongund

<mck> Worse case scenario is that the spec allows a role on an html element that you really should not use.

JD: Getting back to question Phillipe and MC asked

<mck> jd: back to michael's question. Will this be a wg review frm aria or separate review reviews by aria wg members.

JD: Do we want an official review of the group or individual

<mck> bg: I would rather get it done as myself rather than rep the group.

<mck> jg? I can do by next week too.

<mck> jd: is rest of group ok with them doing individual reviews vs a group review?

<mck> mc: fine with that.

JD: The WG is grateful to BG and JG for doing the rview, but it will not be a working group review or blessing

<mck> phillipe: I think so too.

Phillipe: can I move to CR now?

MC: JG and BG will review by next week

<mck> jd: next week you will have two reviews from members of the aria wg. It will be up to web platfomrs if they want to hold off going to cr.

MC: Do we want to ask them to hold up?

<mck> mc: it may be possible that they have already gone to cr by the end of the next week.

<mck> so do we want them to hold off.

<mck> jd: I say we give them the option but do not ask them to hold.

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

RESOLUTION: ARIA WG will not perform formal review of ARIA in HTML, but some participants will submit review
... ARIA WG does not request that transition to CR for ARIA in HTML be delayed but advises them comments may come from individuals by 16 March 2018

<scribe> scribe: mck

Personalization Semantics

Charles: on behalf of personalization tf, we are making incremental improvement to explainer and adaptive content module.

we want to get it up by csun.

mostly minor items and some clean up.

jd: should I be anticipating crfc for new wd publication

charles: yes, there will be request for cfc.

AccName: 1.1 issues update

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestones

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestone/1

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestone/2

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/2

mck: this issue triggers tangent issues that I added as comments

the basic question has a clear answer

but there are other things with problems

unsure if we should close issue 2 and open others, or keep working on issue 2

either way, should be for version 1.2

I´m seeing numbering differences between versions, some wording are specific

<janina> There's a CSS spec on this, recently versioned, afaik

<mck> scribe: mck

AccName: Testable statements and testing

Postponing topic.

Publishing the "wide review" Working Draft of AccName

<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/accname/master/

JD: Chaals pointed we have not published a wd of accname since 2016.

I asked about turning accname aam into just accname

b/c all the mappings are in the AAM specs.

The rawgit link for master is a draft of the spec that is reduced to just pure algorithm.

I would like to do cfc to publish this next week

If you see any reason not to do a wide review working draftbased on what let me know by Monday.

jd: I want the cfc to be for the version we actually publish.

Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

08 Mar 2018

Attendees

Contents