Meeting minutes
<Jemma> scribe anyone?/me
Accordion
tooltip
<Jemma> https://
Jemma: so thinking about what updates we can make, right?
<Jemma> https://
Matt_King: just want look at what we can try between now/Nov 1 and Nov 8
Matt_King: a super simple illustration/example page, if we can do that between now and then that would be great
Matt_King: at least want to try, it would be very helpful for 1.2. sarah_higley what do you think?
sarah_higley: what i'm working on would be a big changee so i don't think we can review that in time. but if you want something small before the 8th...
Matt_King: well i'm asking if you think there's any small changes _worth_ making more than anything
sarah_higley: a small interim change might bog us down a bit
Matt_King: ok! just wanted input before making an explicit decision
sarah_higley: if anyone _wants_ it i'm happy to work on it
Matt_King: unless there's objection, we'll leave as is for now
Accordions
<Jemma> https://
Matt_King: we merged your first changes sarah_higley, simple stuff
Matt_King: but you have another PR that's basically to add an additional accordion; so we'd have one with static content, one with forms, and this more robust forms/wizard one you made in 1834, right?
Matt_King: is _this_ something we want to land in the next 2 weeks?
sarah_higley: i think i just need to add tests so we should be able to review it
Matt_King: awesome, i'll change it from a draft so we can get reviews done while you're adding tests
<Jemma> https://
Jemma: since we have howard_edwards with us, i see 1834 is assigned to Jes - do we need to change that?
Jemma: also hello howard_edwards!
howard_edwards: myself and Simon will be looking through Jes' assignments, you can assign them to me
Jes: it didn't disappear, i was just waiting for things to be more ready
Matt_King: Issue 1002 -- I've always thought No should answer those questions, but Bryan had another thought
BryanGaraventa: my concern is I see people using accordions for many things. for simple things landmarking the answers might not be so important, headings might be enough.
BryanGaraventa: but in cases like megamenu structures, those are accordion style interfaces. When someone does that, it's hard to tell where the regions are, especially if the activeelements info isn't there to demarcate boundaries
Matt_King: so if they're not things that should be landmark regions, shouldn't they be labelled groups?
BryanGaraventa: I think the Adobe megamenu structure works in the way I'm describing. groups technically work but doesn't include navigation between regions which might be important
Matt_King: sounds like issue 1002, which is about disclosures and an FAQ example... I'm concerned we'd be conflicting with our landmark advice (like not using too many regions). a long accordion/FAQ then might overpopulate regions
BryanGaraventa: True, you're right. maybe guidance that if something is simple it doesn't need them. I'm thinking of something like settings panels if there's show/hide controls, additional form fields near text, large paragraphs, etc.
… if there are no regions, there's very little that helps you understand where you are. having region nav commands can be really helpful in cases like that
Matt_King: in the accordion pattern you're always supposed to use headings, we discourage regions inside main. if proper heading structure is used, wouldn't it conflict?
<Jemma> "however this guidance does not take into account that there may be many such regions where the only way to ensure proper nesting information is to expose the relevant regions that are applicable."
siri: and they're grouped by list elements.
Matt_King: well accordions aren't typically a list format, we removed the list structure from accordions with help from community feedback
Matt_King: and if we use lists, then you're forcing authors to put other list items inside the parent list item, which may or may not be appropriate.
Jemma: So Bryan mentioned the above quote [that I pasted in a few lines up]. is there a specific use case for this? Or could we use a parent/child relationship?
BryanGaraventa: I don't know anything that works as well as region might. group _may_ ....
Matt_King: headings work really well. normally, in the main content of any document, info in the main region would be under headings...
BryanGaraventa: Well not all accordions I've seen have headings
Matt_King: our pattern, though, recommends using headings for each header
<Jemma> Why don't we use queue for questions?
BryanGaraventa: in a megamenu, there might not always be headings, and they don't always use headings because the styles might change - i've heard reluctance to doing so
Matt_King: would you be opposed to aria-role=heading?
BryanGaraventa: i've recommended it! it helps, but only when they do it
<Jemma> another option is dd dl
sarah_higley: style issues should be solved with CSS. But also, there's lots of places where headings might not be appropriate based on content structure. it seems very "it depends"
Matt_King: i think if we could come up with such an example... i'm struggling with the concept that semantically a region can't substitute for a heading. and if you use a region label, why not use an ARIA heading?
BryanGaraventa: So if you rely on headings to mark boundaries of a dynamic region, if you don't convey the _end_ of that content, it's hard to know when you've strayed outside of it. in the case of something like a settings panel/dialog, that can be expanded/collapsed, it might be easy to leave that area without realizing it. e.g. if there's no headings after it
<Jemma> +1 to Matt
BryanGaraventa: It's a little niche but a relevent example
Matt_King: i'm hesitant to say it should be a landmark region, because landmark regions aren't meant to convey boundaries
BryanGaraventa: We do that for carousels though
Matt_King: did we use role=region for the outer container and role=group for the slide container? i think so
Matt_King: okay so if you put one region around the entire accordion, maybe that'd work. but that'd depend on the context
Matt_King: so back to issue 954...
BryanGaraventa: if there's a simple way to do this without region i'm welcome to it, but I haven't found anything as useful
Matt_King: role=separator with a description?
BryanGaraventa: you can't skip separators with shift-greaterThan in JAWS with separators
sarah_higley: i just want to add that we shouldn't be TOO perscriptive
BryanGaraventa: I agree - i also don't want to encourage people NOT to do something that CAN help accessibility
Matt_King: I also agree
Matt_King: if you can change some wording in 954 to get something useful around the entire accordion widget, maybe that'd be good
BryanGaraventa: That makes sense, that could be useful
Matt_King: does that address things, at least for now, Bryan?
BryanGaraventa: I think so, I can try it out
Matt_King: can you take a look and try it out? See if you can address some wording and all?
jemma: that took care of 1834 and 954
Matt_King: let's take a look at 1814, Jon's PR
https://
Matt_King: is there new a11y feature documentation on here?
jongund: yes
Matt_King: any changes to visual design? We could do that now if so
jongund: mostly just some updates to make everything look more consistent with our other examples
Matt_King: does anyone have any concerns about the styling on either of these examples?
jongund: SVGs are also updated to be better in line with HCM best practices
MarkMcCarthy: visual design looks good to me
jongund: should be a big improvement actually
Matt_King: awesome, let's check off visual review
Matt_King: editorial should be pretty quick
siri: i'll check it in HCM
[discussion about different on:hover vs. on:focus styling, generally speaking and not necessarily related to the issue]
Matt_King: moving on, let's look at the visual design for combobox
jongund: overall i think this is a big improvement to the previous visual styling
MarkMcCarthy: i think so too, easy to tell what's selected, where focus is, that the combobox is selected. well done!
jongund: i also added documentation
Matt_King: sounds like the changes are positive, awesome
Matt_King: so then the radio button one...
jongund: this one was fixing styling that i didn't know was broken. it was removed at some point along the line
Matt_King: oh i was talking about 2056, i think I merged the one you just mentioned
jongund: so with scroll-to, commenting out one bit of code seemed to fix the problem
Matt_King: any visual design changes or anything?
jongund: nope
Matt_King: so then that one should be good
Matt_King: thanks everyone, great meeting today!
Matt_King: T-1 week to look at PRs, 1.2 is coming!