<aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria
<scribe> scribe: jongund
JK: : Discussion with Joanie, it seems like meeting before works
MK: I should have voted, I can't meet before
JN: ARIA regular meeting would be an hour earlier and the extra time would be at the current time with a 15 minute break
AL: We are not making a decision now, we are still collecting data
MK: When are you thinking of
making the change?
... I would miss the meeting every other week
AL: You can't miss otherwise we will change combobox
JN: MK we need you to attend,
maybe we just switch the times, and have the other meeting
before
... I like it since we need to think about an in depth topic a
week to think about
MK: My other meeting has more senior people, so it is a hard ask
<Jemma> James, are you going to send out the agenda for next week?
<Jemma> one before regular one.
JN: For now we leave the current meeting where it is and the extra meeting before with a forced break of 15 minutes
SB: will the meeting IDs change?
JN: It will probably have the same meeting ID
MK: Who will set the deep dive topic
<Jemma> I will miss first part of meeting for 30 min.
JN: I will put the topic of a deep dive on the agenda for discusion
MK: If I don't resolve the conflict I can ask for a delay of one week
JN: We need to have prep time
MK: It may not happen every week
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1263
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1257
<jcraig> FYI, the "meaty" topic I proposed last week: https://mit.zoom.us/j/101412589?pwd=MDRSMmU0Rkh0WnRjbmlZOXlRTzhUQT09
<jcraig> oops... Wrong link
JN: I saw this shortcut feature, it sounds like a really great or terrible idea
<jcraig> FYI, the "meaty" topic I proposed last week: https://w3ccommunity.slack.com/archives/C012QQXV1EH/p1588180882001300
MK: It is a terrible idea and
started at Facebook before I got here
... If J is used you don't have J for Jaws
JN: Can MK or SB put something in
the issue
... This is a shortcut key feature used by some people
... If you think there is a useful feature related to this, put
that in the comment
SB: I think it has been implemented in a bad way
<Stefan_> https://github.com/phetsims/balloons-and-static-electricity/issues/111
SB: The mapping needs to be under the users control
MK: That is an interesting topic, maybe for a deep dive topic
JN: We will put it on ARIA 1.3 issue and make it a deep dive issue at some point
The next 3 issue should be for ARIA 1.3
JN: Someone make them as ARIA 1.3 issues
CM: I will
JN: JC has some related to 1.2
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1261
JN: AL can you review this
JC: JOanie would be another great reviewer
JN: We want Anna or Dominic to sign off as well
JC: Can we add external reviewers?
JN: GitHub does not allow that
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1260
JN: This looks easy
JC: Araon can you look at this too
AL: I will look at it or ALice
JC: I will ask Alice too
https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1262
CM: It should be easy to
merge
... It needs aria-haspop in 1.2 and the rest could go in
1.3
JN: I have merged typos when I find them
JN: JC you have PRs for the last two issue
<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1224
JN: Depreciated globals is ready to merge
MK: I want to talk about JC
comments
... To me these are editorial
... This text use to be in AAM and it was moved here
... There was some text in core AAM and joanie moved it
here
... We discovered there were some issues with the text, so we
are bring the two into alignment
JC: If the working group decides
what we need I am fine with it, it is still hard to read
... quotes from the document
... This is leading into a list, it took me a long time to
unpack this
JG: There wee some changes after the first PR
MK: In my review I requested some changes, but I thought you would have commented in the first..
JC: If there are problems in
existing text I don't usually comment
... These should have been two separate PRs
MK: There was a use of descendant
earlier, ....
... It wasn't clear, if you look at previous line 384
....
... That was suppose to be changes since is was using
descendant
JC: I would have expected
...
... The RFC comment is an additional requirement, it should be
removed
MK: I agree
JC: If the working group wants to move on
JN: We should not be adding a new
requirement
... The last of my comments
MK: I see one on 13318, that you could not see the change
JC: I was wondering if the other
substantive change needs platform review
... Line 384...
... We need to mark something as focusable in the accessibility
API
AL: There is anotehr one I need to review, it is hard to know if something is focusable using active descendant, we require ...
JN: AL added as a reviewer
JC: If there are some edits before we review them
JN: Remove the should to authors
JC: Use the term attribute, since that what developers think of, rather than property or state
JN: I am not fully aware of how we are doing it throughout the document
MK: If you are talking about a specific ...
<jamesn> Refer to states and properties in prose as "attributes", not as "states" or "properties" in order to be less confusing. (though they're still formally states or properties)
JC: I did a major edit several years ago to make this consistent
JN: I will go through the document to fix them
JC: I don't think we need to do them right now
MK: I want to do it the right way if I am doing a PR
<Jemma> +1 for clear usage of different terms
JC: I will make a new issue to update the style guide
JN: It is already in the style guide
JC: It is already in there
<carmacleod> https://w3c.github.io/aria/#statevsprop
CM: It is also written in the spec, quoting the document
MK: The thing related to focusable and active descendant, we made this change, for textbox it seems to be working, my previous understnadingm there was not much validation of what active descendant could point to
AL: As long we have language that user agents are not required to check, neither FF or Chrome check, we just check the DOM element for activedescendat
JG: : I can make some updates
JN: JC made some change
requests
... Would empty descriptions be allowed?
JC: There a bunch of review
comments
... I made them as comments, and there were no changes tot he
document, so marked them as blocking to force some response
JN: AL how are we on aria-description?
AL: It did not land?
... I need to finish that, I have been working of fixing real
bugs
JN: Can you make some updates?
AL: In the next couple of weeks
JC: I am going to assign AL to the issue
JN: Another accname issue
... This label has been on this for a long time
BG: I am trying to read it
now
... Nothing has happened recently
JN: A question on what hidden means for computing the accname
MK: This has something to do with implict or explicitly hidden
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57#issuecomment-533815097
MK: If some thing is part of a large hidden block or explicitly hidden element
<Jemma> <div id="1" hidden>My Label</div><input type="text" aria-labelledby="1">
<Jemma> <div hidden><div id="2">My Label</div></div><input type="text" aria-labelledby="2">
MK: There was a condition that an element would not be included because it ancestor is hidden
BG: Whether something is explicitly hidden ot part of a larger hidden was not clear, I don't care just want to know
JN: Comment....
BG: If you have an arria-labelledby that points to something that is hidden, should it make any difference if it is hidden or its parent is hidden in the same way
AL: We currently look at changes in the descendants visibility, so if the referenced element is hidden then all is included, if the parent is visible and a descendant is hidden it is not included
MK: An element that is hidden is a DIV with some text, does it matter in chrome if the the hidden is on the DIV or on an acestor
AL: It doesn't mater now
... if someone wants foo, we give them foo
<Jemma> I think we got the anwer.
<Jemma> from Aron.
MK: It doesn't matter if it is hidden or hidden by an ancestor
JN: If that is consistent across user agents, we just need to make it clear
AL: I need to go over the accname
stuff again
... It is more about will I use the node that I am on, if I get
there by recurssion....
JN: Can AL look at this issue
AL: I can't do it soon, but it needs to be done, I don't thing
<Jemma> bye everyone.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/aron/aaron/ Present: jamesn Joanmarie_Diggs MarkMccarthy StefanSchnabel carmacleod jongund harris BGaraventa Jemma jcraig Matt_King Regrets: pkra CurtBellew Found Scribe: jongund Inferring ScribeNick: jongund WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]