– DRAFT –
ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force

setup and review agenda

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/December-14%2C-2021-Agenda

scribe

APG redesign project

<Jemma> topic is about major principles for new build process

<Jemma> Our next meeting will be Jan 11, 2022

Matt_King: making sure infrastructure is easy to maintain and sustainable.

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/December-14%2C-2021-Agenda

Seth: We have had discussions and it is worth writing some of them down now

Matt_King: My main concern is making sure that the work of the task force can continue forward should Bocoup not be available.

seth: I agree. Maintainability and longevity. Shouldn't require some individuals passing down knowledge.

jongunderson: what underlying technologies are being used?

seth: Everything is based on an architecture from the W3 E&O team. A nested group of Jekyll sites.

<howard_edwards> https://wai-website-theme.netlify.app/technical/

Matt_King: good documentation is a huge step forward.

<Jemma> https://wai-website-theme.netlify.app/technical/#jekyll

seth: Jekyll doesn't presuppose much about the location of files. We have gotten a jekyll site already working with the aria site today.

Matt_King: we do want to restructure so the amount of transformation code is minimized and easy to maintain. We can do this in pieces correct?

<Jemma> love the APG as the "source of truth" Seth is referring to.

seth: yes that is correct. we can also think about ways for apg to evolve. ideally apg is the source of truth for not only the website but also other consumers. such as the aria-at app.

Jemma: is there any way we can make these examples more compartmentalized? what is our plan for that?

partnering with MDN appears to be our greatest opportunity. appears to be a collaboration to discover how we need to change the content.

<Jemma> ..so that each section can be used for different part of documentation for diverse audience

seth: yes, i believe it is a great motivating example. the website currently has scripts consuming respec docs. if mdn wanted to do this they would have to do something similar. we could consider restructuring breaking up how the content is structured and easier to parse. important thing in how to support multiple partners.

Jemma: is this part of the current scope?

seth: it depends on how fast the tf is comfortable. how comfortable is the tf with us freezing the repos so we can move forward with some breaking changes.

Matt_King: I think the answer depends on when the E&O and APG TF arrive at an agreement about publishing changes. i think whatever the launch date will be impacts that decision.

Matt_King: if we are to lock ourselves out of the ability to update and the launch date turns out to be may instead of march and someone points out a hideous bug it will not be a good thing that we cannot update.

jamesn: If we had a fork to push those changes that might be a solution

seth: we could keep a branch to correct typos but not to introduce new examples

<Jemma> I support James' suggestion

jamesn: I wouldn't see typos be updated but correcting major issues.

Matt_King: I think the timeline is still up in the air and still have some to dos with the E&O group and hoping for March launch.

Matt_King: do you think it would be a problem to keep the main branch all the way to launch

seth: it pushes out conversations we are having. you wouldn't want to be creating examples in a new branch.

Matt_King: I am not completely clear on what would be blocked on delaying the transformation of the source

<Jemma> http://wai-aria-practices.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/

<howard_edwards> i actually dropped off irc Jemma, could you share again?

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/apg-redesign

<Jemma> http://wai-aria-practices.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/apg-redesign

Technical Recommendation for New APG Site Build Process

<Jemma> aria repo will stay as it is and incorprated into wai repo

seth: our recommendation follows other websites. parallel repos will be in place

<howard_edwards> transform repo is currently located at https://github.com/bocoup/wai-aria-practices

aria-practices and wai-aria-practices

<Jemma> Next steps

<Jemma> Move repo to W3C organization.

<Jemma> Get W3C netlify credientials.

<Jemma> Integrate this resource with the main WAI website.

<Jemma> yeah. I love that netlify feature!

<Jemma> I think neflify check changes and informs errors

seth: the benefit of netlify is that it builts all commits for all branches. a preview link is generated. not intended for a link to be shared publicly. turn on deploy previews through w3c netlify account

Matt_King: are all the capabilities we need free or does w3c have a netlify account. are we covered there?

seth: i believe we are covered there and there is information in the link Howard shared.

howard_edwards: a git submit module is an inherent dependency. by default it looks for a commit on a branch. it is a git dependency for another repository. it is not looking at the head of the branch by default. you will have to manually write a command but will be handled in automated environment.

Matt_King: we would have some automation in aria-practices repo

<Jemma> gitsubmodule is very useful when we want to share the code

seth: we have mapped out how this relationship will work based on how other wai supporting documents work. not quite ready to share the mechanism yet.

Matt_King: we could make it a branch other than main so we could preview it there and not having it deploy to the website.

<Jemma> and track changes

howard_edwards: we have been working on a poc to accomplish this

Matt_King: it sounds like this base structure is emulating what have been done other wai websites. can we have michael cooper make the migration?

alflennik: yes, we have the conversation to transfer the repo from one organization to another.

Matt_King: I am comfortable with that. Does anyone have any concerns with us moving forward?

seth: Alex can you add Matt to the original thread with Michael Cooper to move forward?

alflennik: shall do.

seth: are the broken links on aria-practices blocking us?

alflennik: yes, we would like to open a PR to correct these links.

jamesn: what are the broken links?

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2144

Matt_King: I thought I fixed these in production for the publication.

alflennik: We are still seeing the issue today.

alflennik: it is the link to the design pattern

Matt_King: we will take the pr. I thought I had fixed those.

seth: we won't be launching the site but getting as close to ready to publish as possible. fix one offs and links should be part of the contribution flow.

seth: this is a very iterative process and want to make sure it is clearly documented.

Jemma: Seth can you give us a heads up when ready for testing?

seth: yes we can give an update on the mailing list

Matt_King: we have talked about getting rid of aria-common completely.

erika: since coming back to the project one of my tasks was looking at aria-common. we have a poc of getting the files through a cdn.

jamesn: what are we still using the files for? if it is just keeping references to roles and properties then we can probably write our own script. we can also export them as references.

jamesn: could reference them like standard respec references. something like xref.

<Jemma> https://respec.org/docs/#element-shorthands

Matt_King: what should we do about versioning? should we reference the stable version? we want to put things in practices labeled as experimental.

jamesn: if something is in the editor version then use that otherwise use the working draft. that is what I am thinking about now.