17:27:55 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:27:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-irc 17:27:58 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:27:59 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 17:28:08 meeting: ARIA WG 17:28:14 chair: JamesNurthen 17:28:58 agendabot, agenda is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html 17:28:58 jamesn, sorry, I don't understand "agenda is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html". Try "agendabot, help". 17:29:11 agendabot, help 17:29:11 jamesn, I am an instance of AgendaBot 0.3. For detailed help, type "help COMMAND", where COMMAND is one of invite, agenda, find, suggest, accept, this is, forget, status, reload or bye. Or go to https://www.w3.org/Tools/AgendaBot/manual.html 17:29:46 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html 17:29:46 clear agenda 17:29:46 agenda+ New Issue Triage 17:29:46 agenda+ New PR Triage 17:29:47 agenda+ Meaty topic for next week 17:29:50 agenda+ ACCNAME Suggested simplification 17:29:53 agenda+ Listbox and tree: clarify requirements for selected and checked 17:29:56 agenda+ Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors 17:29:59 agenda+ 1.3 triage 17:32:20 regrets+ PeterKrautzberger JoanmarieDiggs MelanieSumner ScottOHara 17:32:30 present+ 17:59:31 I am joinng now 18:00:12 StefanS has joined #aria 18:00:15 present+ 18:00:34 present+ 18:00:35 MarkMccarthy has joined #aria 18:00:37 present+ 18:00:38 present+ 18:00:42 scribe: MarkMccarthy 18:00:43 present+ 18:01:52 CurtBellew has joined #aria 18:02:20 zakim, next item 18:02:20 agendum 1 -- New Issue Triage ... ore-aam&type=Issues> -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:02:41 carmacleod has joined #aria 18:02:48 present+ 18:02:50 https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues 18:02:56 Matt_King has joined #aria 18:03:09 jamesn: 5 new issues, skipping the first (#96) as its on agenda today 18:03:25 jamesn: 1382, 1.2 roadmap - not sure how to answer this on github but I'll take care of it 18:03:30 present+ 18:03:39 Isabel has joined #aria 18:03:48 jamesn: 1381, followup on 1100. jcraig 18:04:05 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381 18:04:05 s/1100. jcraig / 1100. jcraig, is this a 1.3 or 1.4 issue? 18:04:42 jcraig: it could be 1.3, but ir eally needs input from joanie and aaron, maybe carmacleod. basically i took this up, just haven't filed it yet 18:04:48 jcraig: might be a nonissue, but not a 1.2 thing 18:05:24 jcraig: either way, this isn't pressing 18:05:45 jcraig: I assigned it to joanie 18:06:03 jamesn: 87 is editorial, 1.3 18:06:18 jamesn: 1380, we talked about it last week. adding 1.3 milestone, would be good to get it done 18:06:28 zakim, next item 18:06:28 agendum 2 -- New PR Triage ... m&type=Issues> -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:06:47 jamesn: only one new PR, just editorial. no need for reviews 18:06:49 zakim, next item 18:06:50 agendum 2 was just opened, MarkMccarthy 18:06:53 zakim, close this item 18:06:53 agendum 2 closed 18:06:54 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:06:54 3. Meaty topic for next week 18:06:54 ... [from agendabot] 18:06:57 zakim, take up item 3 18:06:59 agendum 3 -- Meaty topic for next week ... ssues> -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:07:22 jamesn: we have a bunch of things for the next deep dive - any proposals or anything? 18:07:32 jamesn: we talked about user actions for the web today, so i'll remove that one 18:08:20 jcraig: no immediate preference on which topic to go over 18:08:59 Matt_King: i thought on the accname one, we agreed that the intent of the spec was clear and bryan was going to propose modifications to make at least that example work 18:09:11 jamesn: there's something on the agenda today for that... 18:09:45 Matt_King: at any rate, the issue of self referencing labels, the algoritm, and spec example are all not exactly agreeing. it probably isn't a good candidate for a deep dive just yet 18:10:02 jamesn: i don't think there's anything to specifically discuss with that... 18:11:09 Matt_King: so maybe no deep dive next week, jamesn! 18:11:17 jamesn: sorted! 18:11:21 zakim, next item 18:11:21 agendum 4 -- ACCNAME Suggested simplification -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:11:52 jamesn: we had this isue with accname, aaron proposed a simplification - linked above - to reorder accname slightly 18:12:31 aaronlev: 2c basically says if 2e applies, do that, otherwise go back to 2c and 2d 18:13:04 aaronlev: so, if 2e comes first, then that order makes a bit more sense. it seems like that what's chrome does anyway. so it just makes it easier to read 18:13:41 Matt_King: one question - i see references to the steps, people refer to the number and letter in issues/blog posts/etc. 18:14:16 Matt_King: because they're numbered and letter, rather than named based on what it does, when it's reordered I wonder if it'll cause confusion. not a reason not to do it, but it makes me wonder if it's truly that simple 18:14:48 bryan: it's kind of unavoidable though, like if other things need to be added, the order is going to change no matter what 18:15:12 jamesn: maybe we do away with numbering in the future, to avoid the issue altogether 18:15:16 jcraig: +`1 18:15:24 Matt_King: that's what I was thinking 18:15:33 s/+`1/+1 18:15:42 jcraig: might be better to put that in a separate issue though 18:15:55 Jemma: aaron talked about recursion for this issue too right? 18:16:12 aaronlev: i didn't rewrite everything, but i did call it descendent recursion, since that's what was intended 18:16:23 jcraig: so we have a short unique name for each step? 18:16:25 jamesn: makes sense 18:16:26 Matt_King: yes 18:16:58 aaronlev: i had been working on a better description of how to do description calc in a table format, people liked that. so maybe that's a good method too 18:17:05 bryan: that'd be awesome! 18:17:16 aaronlev: short unique name is recommended. it would be more appropriate to use the word "description calculation or decendants recursion" 18:17:23 jcraig: an example would be great! 18:17:26 rather than " recursion" 18:17:54 aaronlev: makes it easier to sort through so much information 18:18:09 jcraig: so if you have something, even incomplete, add it to an issue so bryan or whoever wants to can look at it 18:18:22 bryan: that would certainly be make things a lot easier 18:18:46 Jemma: makes me wonder if the table format would be 1:1 mapping, since it's not a flowchart? but i'm curious 18:18:57 aaronlev: i'll send an example, i promise it's easier than a flowchart! 18:19:25 carmacleod: back on the 2c/2d etc. PR, watch out for the IDs and fragment identifiers 18:19:45 jamesn: someone else can probably write this PR, so don't worry too much about it aaronlev 18:20:07 jamesn: i'll assign this to me. any objections any of this? 18:20:15 bryan: sounds great, i'm all for simplification. 18:20:20 zakim, next item 18:20:20 agendum 5 -- Listbox and tree: clarify requirements for selected and checked -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:20:31 s/about recursion/about recursion concept 18:21:00 jamesn: so this is all ready to go in but I didn't yet because I wanted aaron to look at it. i'd love James Teh and Matt_King to add some comments to aaron's comment 18:21:21 Matt_King: i thought I already did, but -- 18:22:10 aaronlev: this is a response to your response, Matt_King. so basically it's not about the initial serialization, but we have to recalculate the tree if user actions intervene 18:22:35 aaronlev: what i want - once it's made a decision to use the selection follows focus rule, it can stick that rule on that tree/list and not have to recompute the rule 18:22:39 s/recalculate/recompute 18:23:09 aaronlev: it'd only make a rule if theres at least one item in there 18:23:42 Matt_King: if there's one item and the author inends to use checked but it's not declared, it won't work right until it's added 18:23:46 aaronlev: essentially yes 18:24:24 aaronlev: basically i just don't think it should be going back and forth and have to recompute etc. 18:24:40 Matt_King: makes sense. 18:25:09 jamesn: potentially we should get new reviewers/re-reviewers, might be helpful. jcraig, your thoughts? 18:25:43 jcraig: i can re-review if need be 18:25:57 Matt_King: doesn't have to be now, but if this is made explicit in spec, we would still need your review 18:26:16 jcraig: so if/when there's a new change, I'll definitely take another look 18:26:26 jamesn: aaronlev, okay to merge now and a new issue for future clarification? 18:26:31 aaronlev: definitely! no worries 18:26:38 jcraig: that'll make the second PR easier to review too 18:26:57 Matt_King: so we'll need an issue documenting when that new PR is there 18:27:09 zakim, next item 18:27:09 agendum 6 -- Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:27:12 scribe: Jemma 18:27:49 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1332#discussion_r553384105 18:29:09 we will wait for Melsumner's response. 18:29:17 zakim, next item 18:29:17 agendum 7 -- 1.3 triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:30:22 car: #350 18:31:01 .. there was inconsistency and I fixed it. it would be great someone, JamesC, can review. 18:31:25 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aproject+sort%3Acreated-asc 18:32:31 #996, we need to editorial work for this, "implicit value" 18:33:13 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/975 18:33:17 s/#996/#966 18:34:02 975 is related to https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/350 18:34:48 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/953#issuecomment-487384288 18:35:55 james: 953 can moved to aria 1.3 18:36:05 car and matt agree 18:37:00 #979 18:37:23 jamesn: no objection moving #979 to 1.4 18:37:44 #982 is editorial 18:38:17 #989 18:38:17 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/989 18:39:11 ..add it to agenda item so that we can learn more about it. 18:40:06 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/991 18:40:16 this can be deep dive topic. 18:40:49 we can also invite other visualization experts, not only leonie 18:40:52 zakim, who is here? 18:40:52 Present: jamesn, MichaelC, jcraig, StefanS, MarkMccarthy, Jemma, carmacleod, Matt_King 18:40:55 On IRC I see Matt_King, carmacleod, CurtBellew, MarkMccarthy, StefanS, RRSAgent, Zakim, jamesn, tzviya, MichaelC, bigbluehat, slightlyoff, ZoeBijl, JonathanNeal, Jemma, jcraig, 18:40:55 ... spectranaut, zcorpan_, timeless, Josh_Soref, agendabot, github-bot, joanie 18:41:04 present+ BryanGaraventa AaronLeventhal 18:41:21 rrsagent, make minutes 18:41:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html Jemma 18:41:29 present+ IsabelHoldsworth 18:41:32 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:41:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html MarkMccarthy 18:50:42 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381 18:50:49 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381 can be a good deep dive topic. 18:51:10 (group discussed about this issue casually) 18:51:37 rrsagent, make mintutes 18:51:37 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintutes', Jemma. Try /msg RRSAgent help 18:51:55 rrsagent, make minutes 18:51:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html Jemma 19:02:24 zakim, part 19:02:24 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been jamesn, MichaelC, jcraig, StefanS, MarkMccarthy, Jemma, carmacleod, Matt_King, BryanGaraventa, AaronLeventhal, IsabelHoldsworth 19:02:24 Zakim has left #aria 20:07:25 jongund has joined #aria 21:01:37 zcorpan has joined #aria