15:58:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
15:58:36 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/25-aria-irc
15:58:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:58:41 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
15:59:10 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
15:59:16 <jamesn> chair: JamesNurthen
16:00:46 <jamesn> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Mar/0027.html
16:00:46 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:00:46 <agendabot> agenda+ - - - - -
16:00:46 <agendabot> agenda+ [1.3 triage](https://bit.ly/3cctWoQ)
16:00:46 <agendabot> agenda+ [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3vTgj64)
16:00:46 <agendabot> agenda+ [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/31b4WrU)
16:00:49 <agendabot> agenda+ [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/394l1Eb)
16:00:51 <agendabot> agenda+ [Security and Privacy Section](https://raw.githack.com/w3c/aria/jnurthen/issue1371/index.html#privacy-and-security-considerations)
16:00:54 <agendabot> agenda+ [Suggested simplification](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96)
16:00:57 <agendabot> agenda+ [Add role=image as synonym for role=img](https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1370)
16:01:00 <agendabot> agenda+ [Spec is unclear on aria-invalid="spelling" | "grammar" uses](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/989)
16:01:03 <agendabot> agenda+ continue [1.3 triage](https://bit.ly/3cctWoQ)
16:01:06 <agendabot> agenda+ - - - - -
16:01:08 <agendabot> agenda+ [Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/aria) ([  View Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/aria/calendar))
16:01:10 <jamesn> agenda?
16:01:11 <agendabot> agenda+ - - - - -
16:01:17 <jcraig> present+
16:01:21 <jamesn> agenda- 1
16:01:32 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #aria
16:01:37 <jamesn> agenda- 12
16:01:39 <jamesn> agenda- 11
16:01:41 <StefanS> present+
16:03:28 <jamesn> agenda?
16:03:41 <jamesn> agenda- 13
16:06:17 <jamesn> agenda+ issue1426
16:07:20 <jamesn> agenda+ issue1428
16:07:26 <jamesn> agenda- 14
16:07:51 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
16:08:10 <Jory> Jory has joined #aria
16:08:11 <pkra> present+
16:08:14 <MarkMccarthy> MarkMccarthy has joined #aria
16:08:35 <Jory> scribe: jory
16:09:41 <Jory> Zakim, next item
16:09:41 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, Jory
16:10:10 <carmacleod> carmacleod has joined #aria
16:10:21 <carmacleod> present+
16:11:08 <Jory> jamesn dealing with individual issues within the github issue UI
16:20:50 <carmacleod> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1130
16:23:02 <Greta> Greta has joined #aria
16:29:37 <Jory> jamesn will add a "1.3 blocking" topic to future meetings
16:51:00 <Jory> We triaged issues starting at #1130 and ended by triaging #1202
16:51:54 <MarkMccarthy> [now breaking before regular 10amPST ARIA-WG call]
16:52:13 <sarah_higley> sarah_higley has joined #aria
17:01:18 <harris> harris has joined #aria
17:01:20 <Jory> Zakim, next item
17:01:20 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3vTgj64) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:01:27 <harris> present+
17:01:52 <MarkMccarthy> present+
17:02:23 <sarah_higley> present+
17:03:51 <Jory> Issue 1437 deemed to be editorial, action item added to issue
17:03:56 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
17:06:17 <Jory> Issue 1436: Action may be to add name not applicable, notes added to issue
17:10:10 <Jory> Matthew King: This change in 1435 might suggest the disability community "owns" the term disabled, but disabled  is an adjective that covers thnings beyond people
17:11:16 <Jory> MK: By adopting the "PWD" terminology a goal is remove the negative connotation of the "dis" in disability
17:12:12 <Jory> MK: Has not seen a groundswell in the disabled community to own "disabled" and remove other uses
17:13:25 <Jory> Greta: In the teaching community it is often deemed better to speak of ability rahter than disability, also this change is inline with the change away from the terms "Master/Slave"
17:14:18 <Jory> James Craig: While we all agree with the change away from "master/slave" there is more disagreement around the mechanics of using disability
17:15:04 <Jory> Greta: Yes, but this is a matter of perception, it is valid to perceive this use of "disabled" as not inclusive
17:15:45 <Jory> Sarah Higley: There is a potential for causing harm if various groups in W3 don't change it universally
17:16:04 <siri> siri has joined #aria
17:16:26 <Jory> James: It would still live on in legacy cases, even if we deprecated it
17:19:10 <Jory> MK: "Differently Abled" vs "People w/ Disabilities" is still unsettled in the community but  "Differently Abled is often perceived as negative, while "Disability" is embedded with an effort to bring positivity to the term. This contrasts with Master/Slave which is less controversially perceived as negative
17:19:25 <StefanS> q+
17:21:16 <jcraig> q+
17:21:35 <jamesn> ack s
17:21:39 <jamesn> ack j
17:21:42 <Jory> StefanS does not advocate for deprecation, but that we should be considering this in future naming
17:22:54 <Jory> James Craig: agrees with MK that he has not heard the disability community request this category of change.
17:23:46 <pkra> I have to dropp off early, I'm afraid.
17:24:12 <Jory> JamesNurthen suggests taking it up with chairs group
17:24:36 <Jory> (missed who said) this should be a public conversation
17:24:55 <Jory> Above was Sarah Higley
17:25:47 <Jory> Greta: advocacy groups are sometimes run by sytems with their own bias or beholden to systems of bias, we should speak to people, not just orgs
17:26:24 <Jory> James N will take to Judy, we need wider buy in.
17:27:08 <MarkMccarthy> scribe: MarkMccarthy
17:27:59 <msumner> msumner has joined #aria
17:28:21 <jcraig> s/foo bar/foo bop/
17:29:34 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: issue 1433, answer seems to be no
17:29:50 <MarkMccarthy> ScottO: yeah we talked about that the other day, agree
17:29:55 <Jory> Jory has left #aria
17:29:56 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i think all the major browsers are doing the right things
17:29:59 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
17:30:06 <msumner> present+
17:30:11 <MarkMccarthy> sarah_higley: i don't think IE11 had great support anyway
17:30:24 <Matt_King> present+
17:30:31 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: is anything missing in the spec? Can someone take a look to confirm?
17:30:47 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: i'd love to take a look at it
17:31:00 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: should be a minor change if anything
17:31:22 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, next item
17:31:22 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/31b4WrU) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:31:49 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: issue 91 is somethiing i filed against core-aam, alreeady working on it
17:31:54 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, close this item
17:31:54 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
17:31:55 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:31:55 <Zakim> 5. [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/394l1Eb) [from agendabot]
17:31:57 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, take up item 5
17:31:57 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/394l1Eb) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:32:21 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: do we want a deep dive next week? topic suggestions?
17:32:58 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: there were some comments from slack, some new things that should be exposed related to data vis, may be a good route but needs the right people involved
17:33:11 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: if no topic proposals, i propose no deep dive next week
17:33:15 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: +1
17:33:22 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: sorted.
17:33:45 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: a general question, we talked about -owns related stuff last week. when are we coming back to it?
17:34:08 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: myself and sarah_higley are working on some of it, and we've got someone else working on another. once we get some place with those, then we'll have another
17:34:22 <MarkMccarthy> sarah_higley: i'm hoping to work on that soon, but might not be finished in time for next week
17:34:31 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: yeah, we'll wait until a PR is ready, no pressure
17:34:37 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, next item
17:34:37 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- [Security and Privacy Section](https://raw.githack.com/w3c/aria/jnurthen/issue1371/index.html#privacy-and-security-considerations) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:35:16 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: we had a meeting with the privacy group earlier in the week and they'd like us to add privacy considerations to 1.2 - which should be fairly simple
17:35:39 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: we worked on drafting up something but needs some language tweaks, grammar and simplification
17:35:53 <jamesn> In accordance with TAG Designs Principles, this specification provides no programatic interface to determine if that information is being used by Assistive Technologies. However, it is possible to present information which is different for users of Assistive Technologies from the information seen by users who do not use Assistive Technologies. This is possible using many features of the ARIA specification, as well as many other parts of the
17:35:53 <jamesn> web technology stack. This content disparity could be used as a fingerprinting method on users of Assistive Technologies.
17:36:05 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: might also want to split into security considerations and privacy considerations [pasted above]
17:36:53 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: i think fingerprinting is the wrong word in this case
17:37:24 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: does fingerprinting have a proper definition, technically speaking?
17:37:29 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: in web dev it does
17:37:48 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: right, and like in conversation it does, but is there a formal technical definition out there?
17:38:12 <joanie> https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/
17:38:25 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: i think the context here is that what this allows on its own is _not_ fingerprinting. _in combination_ with other things we could fingerprint, but not through these methods alone
17:38:54 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: i'm also not even certain our spec does that. the DOM spec does, but is this language going into that too?
17:39:10 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: we've no way of taking care of that with W3C since that's WHAT-WG
17:39:27 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: if this is going into 1.2 as is before the tag issues are address, then this should go in every update henceforth
17:39:37 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i think CSS is using this liberally now in all new things
17:39:46 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: this particular language?
17:39:50 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: the fingerprinting bit
17:39:56 <joanie> q+
17:40:07 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: good - but it needs to be more focused on assisitive tech since that's the area it's more likely to be used
17:40:38 <siri> present +
17:40:48 <MarkMccarthy> joanie: i vaguely remember saying that CSS and other specs are way more problematic about this than our spec, but we've still been asked to do so
17:41:12 <MarkMccarthy> joanie: i agree with you 100% jcraig but we still gotta do it.
17:41:40 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: i don't disagree about putting it in, but we should push to put it in with HTML/CSS. if they want to address it, that'd be a better place to start
17:42:51 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: so one example where this might apply is putting a disingenuous aria-label on something, and using that to "Catch" a screen reader user becuase their label is different than a visible one
17:43:23 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: i propose "device fingerprinting methods" (can be linked to wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint)
17:43:52 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: we all know the entire web stack can be abused, and i think that this says what we mean to say, but adding the adjective would help
17:43:56 <MarkMccarthy> +1
17:44:27 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: from wikipedia - "A device fingerprint or machine fingerprint is information collected about the software and hardware of a remote computing device for the purpose of identification."
17:44:35 <MarkMccarthy> sarah_higley: software is one major way of fingerprinting a device
17:44:46 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: agree - the term itself is a little wonky, but this makes sense to me too
17:45:00 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i'll send to the mailing list and ask folks to look at it
17:45:09 <MarkMccarthy> ack joanie
17:45:34 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i think they're misunderstanding exactly how much of this is in the ARIA spec, but I wanted to make sure to get this in there
17:45:49 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: as an aside, it might be better to spell out TAG rather than an abbreviation
17:46:12 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: one more suggestion - i think that this, as written, could also be applied to CSS. for HTML it should be much more strict
17:46:13 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: yep
17:46:30 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i'll make those changes and try moving this forward - thanks all
17:47:23 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: one more thing - it should reference the ongoing issue open with TAG.
17:47:30 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: got it
17:47:34 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, next item
17:47:34 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- [Suggested simplification](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:48:10 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: melanie, i wanted your take on this (accname issue 96).
17:48:27 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i wonder about your thoughts on getting this in 1.2
17:48:33 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: yes, i had the same thought. assign me
17:49:20 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: so a comment on that... right now a lot of people have anchors that say "reference step 2E" etc. in other places. If we do this, those break. Which might be okay. But it might be helpful to address that possibly happening
17:49:27 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: that's the main complication with this
17:49:42 <MarkMccarthy> melanie: isn't TF Silver trying to get away from numbers? that should help with this
17:49:56 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: sorted.
17:50:02 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, next item
17:50:02 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- [Add role=image as synonym for role=img](https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1370) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:50:30 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: Scott you took an initial pass, were waiting on some changes. any updates?
17:50:59 <MarkMccarthy> ScottO: I'll let Matt_King and jcraig decide, since there was contradictory information
17:51:16 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: lol - i think we were waiting for this to come up on an agenda. i kind of forgot what the changes were
17:51:22 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: me too, to both
17:52:04 <MarkMccarthy> Scott: I just wanted to make sure we had agreement on the changes that Matt suggested, which were the opposite of jcraig's points. If we can sort that out, I'm happy continuing.
17:53:11 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: was there an issue related to something with Chrome not supporting fallback?
17:53:13 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: that was IE
17:53:29 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: oh okay, so if someone does provide fallback, then it should work?
17:53:46 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: i think it's reasonable to have fallback specified in 1.3 and remove it in 1.4
17:53:50 <MarkMccarthy> jcraig: go for it
17:54:14 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: in practice, specifying a fallback seems... nonsensical from an authoring standpoint
17:54:35 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: basically i didn't want to _encourage_ that so as to not waste anyone's time
17:54:50 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: decision time! vote for fallback role:
17:55:09 <jcraig> +0
17:55:30 <joanie> -1
17:55:39 <joanie> yes
17:55:49 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: no votes for fallback roles? joanie votes against it
17:55:57 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: okay, then no fallback roles, there we go!
17:56:07 <jcraig> ±1
17:57:28 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, next item
17:57:28 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- [Spec is unclear on aria-invalid="spelling" | "grammar" uses](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/989) -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:58:19 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: aaron's issue, let's try and make a decision. it seems like, from consensus, that well have a new attribute. two votes against aria-invalid back to global. no votes against creating a new global attribute.
17:58:33 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: last chance to go against that decision
17:58:37 <MarkMccarthy> carmacleod: it's 3-2
17:58:53 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: i feel uncomfortable calling it the last chance, it feels more like a vote for a proposal
17:58:56 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: of course!
17:59:03 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: if someone makes the proposal, we should go with it
17:59:19 <MarkMccarthy> Matt_King: i want to see the full proposal and then be able to discuss that with AT vendors before fully deciding
17:59:31 <jamesn> agenda?
17:59:44 <MarkMccarthy> carmacleod: this would involve so many specs
17:59:52 <MarkMccarthy> jamesn: yeah, but at least the AT might not have to
18:00:07 <MarkMccarthy> zakim, who is here?
18:00:07 <Zakim> Present: jcraig, StefanS, pkra, carmacleod, harris, MarkMccarthy, sarah_higley, Joanmarie_Diggs, msumner, Matt_King
18:00:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see Matt_King, msumner, siri, harris, sarah_higley, Greta, carmacleod, MarkMccarthy, StefanS, RRSAgent, Zakim, jamesn, github-bot, zcorpan, MichaelC, ZoeBijl, bigbluehat,
18:00:09 <Zakim> ... slightlyoff, agendabot, jcraig, joanie, JonathanNeal, timeless, Josh_Soref
18:00:49 <MarkMccarthy> present+ Siri Greta
18:00:54 <MarkMccarthy> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:00:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/25-aria-minutes.html MarkMccarthy
19:02:55 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
19:08:28 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #aria