17:00:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
17:00:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/09-aria-irc
17:00:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:00:17 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
17:00:18 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
17:00:23 <jamesn> chair: JamesNurthen
17:00:29 <jamesn> present+
17:01:01 <Greta> Greta has joined #aria
17:01:06 <Greta> present+
17:01:26 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
17:01:33 <jongund> present+ jongund
17:02:03 <sarah_higley> sarah_higley has joined #aria
17:02:14 <WTennisNFCU> WTennisNFCU has joined #aria
17:02:18 <WTennisNFCU> present +
17:02:25 <WTennisNFCU> present+
17:02:29 <jamesn> agenda+ [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3lmotzt)
17:02:29 <jamesn> agenda+ [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3yOFg2I)
17:02:29 <jamesn> agenda+ [Deep Dive planning](https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates)
17:02:29 <jamesn> agenda+ Charter Updates - Have agreement from SVG WG to add SVG-AAM - cyns to edit?
17:02:29 <jamesn> agenda+ [TPAC 2021 - breakout sessions](https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/SessionIdeas)
17:02:30 <jamesn> agenda+ [Updating ARIA 1.2 due to IDL implementations (exit and re-enter CR?)](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1598) - is this ready?
17:02:30 <jamesn> agenda+ [When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description?](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57) - please review current draft
17:02:36 <sarah_higley> present+
17:03:20 <jamesn> scribe: sarah_higley
17:03:41 <MarkMcCarthy> MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria
17:04:30 <sarah_higley> zakim, first item
17:04:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'first item', sarah_higley
17:04:35 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:04:36 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3lmotzt) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:04:55 <sarah_higley> jn: two new issues, both need James Craig, I believe
17:05:24 <sarah_higley> jn: is my understanding correct in that we would not expect this to do what the filer is stating that it should?
17:05:35 <sarah_higley> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1612
17:06:38 <sarah_higley> cs: I guess I"m not understanding what the problem is here
17:06:50 <sarah_higley> jn: the filer seems to be implying that certain things are returning things that are different from what they are
17:07:22 <sarah_higley> jn: essentially we only expect role to return the role if we have explicitly assigned the role via the attribute or assigning it to the object
17:07:33 <sarah_higley> cs: he's expecting the role for an html element that has an implicit mapping
17:07:41 <sarah_higley> cs: what he's expecting is not expected
17:07:50 <sarah_higley> cs: I understand why it's confusing, we should have documentation
17:07:58 <sarah_higley> jn: can someone take up a task to document it better?
17:08:05 <sarah_higley> cs: yeah, if you make it for 1.3 or 1.4, I can take it
17:08:20 <sarah_higley> jn: I think we should try to do it in 1.3, can you and James discuss it?
17:08:47 <sarah_higley> jn: the other one is https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1610
17:08:57 <sarah_higley> jn: James filed this, Scott put a comment in
17:09:25 <sarah_higley> cs: is Michael Cooper here, I recall this being written for political rather than technical reasons
17:09:34 <sarah_higley> mc: I recall writing some text for those reasons
17:10:08 <sarah_higley> jn: so essentially what this is saying is if something does not have a native attribute, but only has a way of programmatically using an API, that could still create a conflict but we do not state that that conflict needs to be resolved in any specific way
17:10:42 <sarah_higley> cs: I don't know that we need to make it apply to non-content attributes unless there's a really good reason for it
17:10:59 <sarah_higley> jn: the reason is that there's a conflict, but that's an author error at that point -- which one wins if there's a conflict
17:11:26 <sarah_higley> so: the one I can think of at the moment is indeterminate for a checkbox. We have aria-checked=mixed, but we only have the IDL attribute for the checkbox attribute
17:12:13 <sarah_higley> so: I agree with what James is proposing here, which is that the native feature should win out, because we don't want to have aria-checked=not mixed on something that is actually mixed
17:12:24 <sarah_higley> jn: so you would be responsible for documenting those in html-aria
17:12:39 <sarah_higley> jn: we would need to make a change that states that you are responsible for documenting where those are, and what wins
17:12:41 <sarah_higley> so: I'm OK with that
17:12:53 <sarah_higley> jn: let's put it on 1.3, but we need an assignee
17:13:00 <sarah_higley> so: I agree, and I have my own work to do there too
17:13:17 <sarah_higley> cs: I guess I can live with that.
17:14:08 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:14:08 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3yOFg2I) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:14:26 <sarah_higley> jn: one new PR we'll take up later
17:14:29 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:14:29 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, sarah_higley
17:14:33 <sarah_higley> zakim, close item
17:14:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', sarah_higley
17:14:36 <sarah_higley> zakim, close this item
17:14:36 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
17:14:37 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:14:37 <Zakim> 3. [Deep Dive planning](https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates) [from jamesn]
17:14:43 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:14:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- [Deep Dive planning](https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:15:11 <sarah_higley> jn: next week we don't have a deep dive planned, the following week we have...
17:15:20 <sarah_higley> jn: tree grids rowindex posinset conundrum
17:15:48 <sarah_higley> jn: we have none for next week, is that ok? And do we want to plan anything for the week following that?
17:16:01 <sarah_higley> gk: how about data viz?
17:16:18 <sarah_higley> jn: I think that's a great idea, when we get to the next topic, we could do this during TPAC potentially and invite a wider community to them
17:16:23 <sarah_higley> cs: when is TPAC again?
17:16:27 <WTennisNFCU> sounds good
17:16:31 <sarah_higley> jn: it'll be in the next agenda topic ;)
17:16:35 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:16:35 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Charter Updates - Have agreement from SVG WG to add SVG-AAM - cyns to edit? -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:17:01 <sarah_higley> jn: we have agreement from the SVG WG to add SVG AAM to our charter, which I feel makes sense. Anyone want to speak up and say we shouldn't do that?
17:17:24 <sarah_higley> jn: ok, so we now have DPUB AAM, SVG AAM, HTML AAM in our charter
17:17:36 <sarah_higley> jn: we'll be moving to living standards, so they won't have releases
17:17:52 <sarah_higley> jn: Cynthia, (someone) said you'd be willing to be an editor?
17:18:05 <sarah_higley> cs: Greta, would you be interested in being a co-editor?
17:18:09 <sarah_higley> gk: sure
17:18:30 <sarah_higley> jn: also would be nice having a co-editor on ARIA
17:18:56 <sarah_higley> jn: if that's agreed, Michael do you have any charter updates for us?
17:19:36 <sarah_higley> mc: so, the charter has been in formal review both horizontal and I don't even remember. We've been asked to clarify from the privacy reviewer to address needs reported by authors to achieve parity with native host language
17:19:46 <sarah_higley> mc: I think those are things he didn't read well, or we need minor clarifications
17:20:03 <sarah_higley> mc: he says there are things in the ARIA WG that are not named "ARIA", and I'm planning to write a polite note back
17:20:15 <sarah_higley> jn: maybe we need to write something about what the ARIA WG is actually chartered to do
17:20:20 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
17:20:24 <sarah_higley> mc: possibly, I thought we did, but I'm looking from outside
17:20:35 <sarah_higley> jn: if you're not an a11y person, it may not be as clear as we think it is
17:20:43 <MichaelC_> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/282
17:20:43 <sarah_higley> jn: anything that comes from our side is fair, right?
17:21:11 <sarah_higley> mc: yes it's fair, we don't have to accept the input, we can argue things the same as we do in working groups. I think it's fine to make some editorial clarifications, and hopefully that'll be satisfactory
17:21:23 <sarah_higley> jn: I think we could say "for every thing, we have a corresponding API mapping"
17:21:37 <sarah_higley> jn: mappings for ARIA spec and its mapping
17:21:56 <sarah_higley> jn: once we have that, it would be great to get it soon, and then we can work on getting this through the formal process
17:22:07 <sarah_higley> mc: I think it's still on track for becoming live when the current one expires
17:23:05 <sarah_higley> mk: does it make sense to say what ARIA specs do is defining what semantics that are used across all web host languages? And so an ARIA spec is more about a11y semantics as opposed to something called "ARIA". ARIA was just the name of the first spec
17:23:11 <sarah_higley> jn: maybe we should change the WG name
17:23:19 <sarah_higley> mk: it's not a crazy idea to call us the a11y semantics WG
17:23:34 <sarah_higley> mc: that's a big change to make this late in the chartering process. If we feel like we need to, but I don't think we need to
17:23:45 <sarah_higley> mc: it's certainly worth keeping in mind for next rechartering
17:23:51 <sarah_higley> cs: does APA still exist?
17:23:53 <sarah_higley> jn: yup
17:23:57 <sarah_higley> cs: maybe clarifying the difference
17:24:07 <sarah_higley> cs: defining those lines, might help
17:24:19 <sarah_higley> jn: realistically everything but core aam could, but it doesn't make much sense
17:24:37 <sarah_higley> mk: I wonder if when we're describing the purpose of the group, the outside feedback could be addressed by saying what we do is a11y semantics
17:24:45 <sarah_higley> jn: do we have an issue to make comments on our charter?
17:24:55 <sarah_higley> mc: yes, the one I pasted a while back (https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/282)
17:25:08 <sarah_higley> mc: yes, things can go in that issue
17:25:21 <sarah_higley> jn: if there are other comments not based on the ones in that issue, should we put them somewhere else?
17:25:31 <sarah_higley> mc: comments we're dealing with on this charter round?
17:25:33 <sarah_higley> jn: yes
17:25:42 <sarah_higley> mc: I guess this is as good a place as any
17:25:56 <sarah_higley> jn: it says feel free to raise issues pointing to our ARIA WG issues -- should we put them there?
17:26:16 <sarah_higley> mc: if they're for our tracking, I'd say put them in the ARIA repo. If they're for something related to our charter, put them in this issue
17:26:20 <sarah_higley> jn: the strategy issue?
17:26:22 <sarah_higley> mc: yes
17:26:24 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/282
17:26:36 <sarah_higley> jn: anything else on charter?
17:26:39 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:26:39 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- [TPAC 2021 - breakout sessions](https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/SessionIdeas) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:27:01 <sarah_higley> jn: so, TPAC is coming up, this is breakout week, we're asked to ask our WG to come up with breakout sessions
17:27:27 <sarah_higley> jn: if you've been at TPAC before in person, Wednesday is the plenary day where you can propose topics and form an impromptu group of people to talk about any topic whatsoever
17:27:51 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #aria
17:27:56 <sarah_higley> jn: we're doing it virtually, october (missed date), we're asked to run them twice in two different time slots. Oh, there's also single time slots
17:28:07 <Jemma> present+
17:28:13 <sarah_higley> jn: if anyone has sessions to propose we can do so, we can also take deep dive topics and do one of those
17:28:39 <sarah_higley> jn: people have come up with ideas already (lists some), we could maybe have a data viz a11y topic, maybe any of the other topics that we have potential deep dives would be awesome things to come up with for this kind of stuff
17:29:03 <sarah_higley> jn: we might get broader participation. If anyone wants to propose one, that'd be awesome, or send a message on the mailing lists to find others
17:29:11 <sarah_higley> cs: we'd talked about an idea for a breakout a few weeks ago
17:29:21 <sarah_higley> cs: I asked Michael the action to propose one
17:29:31 <sarah_higley> mc: at the time I didn't know, I do know now. Let me dig it up
17:29:40 <sarah_higley> jn: what was it? was I here?
17:29:41 <MichaelC_> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/SessionIdeas
17:29:53 <sarah_higley> mc: there's a wiki page to propose wiki sessions (linked)
17:30:17 <sarah_higley> jn: Cynthia, can you trawl back through the minutes and find what topic you proposed?
17:30:20 <sarah_higley> cs: yes
17:30:34 <sarah_higley> jn: also if anyone else has topics to propose, it doesn't have to come out of the WG
17:30:37 <sarah_higley> cs: I think it was AOM
17:31:11 <sarah_higley> mk: what makes a good topic is the kind of thing where we want to draw people in from other WGs that will either not have time to participate in ARIA b/c they're doing other a11y stuff, or they're working on tech that has a dependency on ARIA or us on them.
17:31:21 <sarah_higley> mk: our normal deepdive stuff is us making up our own minds
17:31:54 <sarah_higley> jn: sometimes not right, data viz is an example of where there are some proposals that are fundamentally different from how we do things today. I know Aaron has one, and I think that would be good to discuss with a wider group fo people
17:32:01 <sarah_higley> cs: I know accessible text editing needs a lot of work
17:32:17 <sarah_higley> jn: yeah. If folks want to think about that, or want help or to work with other people, bring it to their attention
17:32:27 <sarah_higley> jn: if you want to run things by me or anyone in this group, please feel free to do so
17:32:49 <sarah_higley> jn: the other thing we can do around TPAC is do our normal deep dive meetings, and have intros around and run some of those during TPAC time
17:32:59 <sarah_higley> cs: October 8th is the deadline for submitting these
17:33:12 <sarah_higley> cs: looks like you can submit after, but ones submitted by the 8th get scheduled first
17:33:22 <sarah_higley> jn: anything else on TPAC? Hopefully in 2022 we'll be in person again
17:33:26 <sarah_higley> sh: so hopeful
17:33:31 <sarah_higley> cs: where would it be?
17:33:36 <sarah_higley> jn: Vancouver
17:33:47 <sarah_higley> zakim, next topic
17:33:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', sarah_higley
17:33:51 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:33:51 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- [Updating ARIA 1.2 due to IDL implementations (exit and re-enter CR?)](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1598) - is this ready? -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:34:04 <sarah_higley> jn: this is the issue, there's the PR too
17:34:20 <jamesn> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/aria/1611/95f3b73...9e290e5.html
17:34:25 <sarah_higley> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1611
17:34:44 <sarah_higley> jn: I'm gonna need some reviewers for this PR
17:34:48 <sarah_higley> cs: I approved it
17:35:01 <sarah_higley> jn: you essentially wrote it, so I don't think you or I are valid reviewers for this PR
17:35:14 <sarah_higley> jn: there are a few minor changes, which I don't know if you noticed
17:35:26 <sarah_higley> cs: I think you had a MUST where I wasn't sure if there should be a must or should
17:35:32 <sarah_higley> jn: could you check on that? It wasn't deliberate
17:35:49 <sarah_higley> jn: the main change was linking to the def of nullable and domstring in the IDL docs, which weren't linked from yours
17:35:59 <sarah_higley> jn: did that change the meaning or intention?
17:36:02 <sarah_higley> cs: I don't think so
17:36:20 <sarah_higley> jn: or actually domstring should be linking to the nullable domstring, but we don't have it yet so it's linking to our def currently
17:36:30 <sarah_higley> jn: our definition of domstring will go away, and it will end up linking to the IDL one
17:36:32 <sarah_higley> cs: that's fine
17:36:44 <sarah_higley> jn: can I get some reviewers who at least have a basic understanding of IDL
17:36:52 <sarah_higley> so: I'll take a look
17:36:57 <sarah_higley> jg: I'll take a look at it
17:37:04 <sarah_higley> jg: do we have any test suites for this?
17:37:06 <sarah_higley> cs: we should
17:37:16 <sarah_higley> jn: the testing for IDL was somewhere else, I think web platform?
17:37:22 <sarah_higley> cs: Joanie knows, we should wait for her to get back
17:37:35 <sarah_higley> jn: we didn't run the tests for it, someone else did. But that's a Joanie question
17:37:48 <sarah_higley> jn: bah, I made some mistakes, thank you Scott for being an HTML validator for me
17:38:15 <sarah_higley> jg: I have a question about IDL. If in Safari, if I set .role, I can use querySelector to find that role, that should work, right?
17:38:24 <sarah_higley> jg: just like if I set with a role attribute, right?
17:38:48 <sarah_higley> jg: for example, using querySelector I can find all elements with role=switch for example. So if I set the role using IDL, I should get the switch too, right?
17:38:58 <sarah_higley> cs: that will work for role and string-type attributes, but not  other attributes
17:39:08 <sarah_higley> cs: because there were multiple choices, and that was the least bad
17:39:13 <sarah_higley> jg: is that discussed here?
17:39:26 <sarah_higley> cs: the background is not discussed here, querySelectors are not discussed here. It will work for the simple string ones.
17:39:36 <sarah_higley> cs: .... is that in here?
17:39:51 <sarah_higley> jn: it says all ARIA attributes reflect in HTML, so it says they reflect
17:40:09 <sarah_higley> cs: what doesn't reflect is arrays of idrefs. and that isn't here yet actually. Arrays of idrefs don't reflect
17:40:19 <sarah_higley> jn: we don't have that in 1.2 yet, so everything in 1.2 reflects
17:40:29 <sarah_higley> cs: there we go, this may be a problem or a thing to document in 1.3
17:40:36 <sarah_higley> jn: everything is a nullable dom string in 1.2
17:40:45 <sarah_higley> jn: OK, so we have now three reviewers for this
17:41:02 <sarah_higley> jn: James reviewing it would be awesome because it wasn't involved in writing it
17:41:06 <Jemma> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_KNKQVTakhP11wekPWhT5FJTtknwJPE7heswUfhHfUs/edit#heading=h.ecvk7fee7mzh
17:41:19 <sarah_higley> jn: is there anyone else from the AOM group who should review it, or have they all verbally signed off on it?
17:41:28 <sarah_higley> cs: I posted a link to it to that group on tuesday
17:41:41 <sarah_higley> jn: would it be worth getting someone who knows IDL who isn't necessarily versed in ARIA to take a look at it?
17:41:46 <sarah_higley> jn: I can ask Westbrook
17:41:52 <sarah_higley> jn: so he knows a bit of background
17:41:53 <sarah_higley> cs: yeah
17:42:23 <sarah_higley> cs: the other part of that issue is do we exit and re-enter CR
17:42:31 <sarah_higley> jn: yes, it was decided we have to if we want this to be in 1.2
17:42:39 <sarah_higley> jn: this is enough of a change that we have to do a new CR
17:42:51 <sarah_higley> jn: the process is slightly different, it's not a formal withdrawing
17:43:02 <sarah_higley> jn: it used to be you had to do a new working draft and things before you went back in
17:43:07 <sarah_higley> cs: a lot of process has lightened up
17:43:26 <sarah_higley> jn: as soon as this is merged, I can get the spec back in order and get the changed in this version stuff redone, and we can re-enter
17:43:52 <sarah_higley> jn: the editor's draft, I'm going to have to create a separate PR against -- I don't think I can cherry-pick this, I think it'll be a difficult merge
17:44:08 <sarah_higley> jn: Cynthia, can I ask you to read the new version of the CR carefully to make sure I haven't messed something up
17:44:09 <sarah_higley> cs: yup
17:44:22 <sarah_higley> zakim, next item
17:44:22 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- [When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description?](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57) - please review current draft -- taken up [from
17:44:25 <Zakim> ... jamesn]
17:44:38 <jongund> have to leave a little early
17:44:41 <sarah_higley> jn: I just want some updates and to update everyone on where this is and work out next steps
17:44:45 <sarah_higley> jn: there is a draft PR, 137
17:44:45 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/137
17:45:22 <sarah_higley> jn: which James did some work on, got some approvals, so I would like to ask some more people to take a look at this and see if they want to comment on it
17:45:28 <sarah_higley> jn: who else would like to take a look at this?
17:45:37 <sarah_higley> cs: I can
17:45:49 <sarah_higley> cs: though we worked pretty closely together, you might want someone further away
17:46:04 <sarah_higley> jn: Sarah, can you?
17:46:05 <sarah_higley> sh: sure
17:46:20 <sarah_higley> jn: you've probably seen use cases where this could break, can you take a look?
17:46:27 <sarah_higley> so: we can tag team that together if you want
17:46:35 <sarah_higley> so: two reviewers for the price of one
17:46:42 <jamesn> agenda?
17:46:43 <sarah_higley> sh: 👍
17:47:03 <sarah_higley> cs: do you want me to be a reviewer?
17:47:18 <sarah_higley> jn: if you'd like to be, yes, if you don't know, no. If by mean make you a reviewer it makes you get to it, then yes
17:47:26 <sarah_higley> cs: I probably won't get to it quickly
17:47:30 <sarah_higley> jn: if you want to, awesome
17:47:39 <sarah_higley> jn: is this something we should get someone from Mozilla to look it?
17:47:43 <sarah_higley> cs: that might be a good idea
17:47:47 <sarah_higley> jn: James Teh?
17:47:55 <sarah_higley> cs: yeah, that sounds like the right person
17:48:05 <sarah_higley> jn: I never know how to get him on it, he's not in the ARIA group is he
17:49:59 <sarah_higley> jn: a housekeeping thing, if anyone wants to flag something for the agenda, just put the agenda label on it
17:50:17 <sarah_higley> zakim, make minutes
17:50:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', sarah_higley
17:50:32 <sarah_higley> rrsagent, make minutes
17:50:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/09-aria-minutes.html sarah_higley
19:10:37 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria