Meeting minutes
<Jem> Meeting agenda: https://
setup and review agenda
Issue Triage
MK: I thougth this search results issue was assigned to me, and we agreed it was out of scope
JK: we'll add the label wontfix
JK: next is #2048, managing focus using aria-activedescendant
<Jem> https://
JK: I don't know where we are in terms of aria-activedescendant
MK: we can add the documentation and guidance labels
MK: I am reluctant to commit a timeline for this one
MK: let's label it and leave it in the backlog
SH: is the fix just to add combobox and searchbox to textbox?
MK: I'm not sure, I guess I can open the file
JK: we can move on to the next item for now
https://
<Jem> https://
JK: editorial?
MK: so this is in the pattern?
JG: this is from a while ago
JG: I think I was talking to someone who mentioned they didn't understand the tab behavior for menubar, so that's why I put the issue in
JK: so Jon, is it OK if we assign this to you, and you can suggest editorial aspects to make it clear?
JG: I can take a try at it
MK: if you can just pull in the quote to the issue, what is the text that you think is ambiguous
MK: I suppose if the whole pattern doesn't say enough, that's a different thing
MK: I wonder if the same person, if they read radiogroup and toolbar, if they'd have the same question
MK: that's always my first instinct with issues like this, is to compare with other places we might have the same problem
MK: sometimes that leads down a rabbit hole
JN: just from looking, it is different. In menubar it's at the end of the pattern, and in toolbar it's up front and the first thing in the pattern
<Jem> https://
JK: would you mind adding that comment to the issue?
JG: it looks like it's a lot clearer in toolbar at least, tab and shift-tab are a lot clearer
JG: so I'll recommend using what's in toolbar in menubar
JN: potentially all composites should be the same as this or similar
https://
MK: I actually don't think this is a disclosure pattern
MK: we're dealing with a11y problems caused by read more/see more
MK: looking at what other sites do, it does look super problematic, almost no one handles focus well in these. But I don't think this is related to the disclosure pattern
<Jem> https://
SH: I'm in favor of us not making an example of this pattern
MK: this is a really common pattern
MK: why do you think that?
SH: it's not an ARIA pattern, I agree it's not a disclosure -- you just make a button, and then figure out how to handle focus
JK: how do we label this?
MK: not for practices would be a good label, but I'm sort of unwilling to close the issue without an explanation
JK: I think Sina explained well why it's an antipattern, I think that's good for now
JK: I put the not for practices label for now
MK: could you assign it to me?
https://
MK: it doesn't say non-interactive
MK: I think our grids that have a combination of interactive and non-interactive content
MK: oh I see, it's just that sentence that doesn't have the word interactive. Maybe we should say something about interactive in that sentence
SH: we have good info in the preceding section, maybe we can literally just insert the word "interactive"
SH: it's the first sentence after this heading: https://
JK: Topic: APG redesign topic
MK: we met with the chairs of the education and outreach WG, including Sean Henry
MK:
MK: and our goal there was to discuss the launch plan for the WAI APG website and work through decision practices, roles and responsibilities, and schedule.
MK: when it comes to our publication process and decisions, Sean Henry is the primary gatekeeper for publication to the WAI website. The APG will become a standalone resource on the WAI website, and so we have alignment on that, and on which design template we want to use
MK: and on the basic mechanics of what a publication process will look like. So when we merge to our main branch, a chain of things will happen
MK: we also have alignment on shooting for GAAD as a launch
MK: and coordinating with education/outreach WG with the w3c stuff, turning that into some sort of notable launch event
MK: essentially some sort of media presence
MK: our next step is to dig into the template design, that'll get into nitty-gritty detail about the differences we have now between prototype design on the preview website and what w3c is currently using for standalone resources
MK: so they're actually in a redesign process for that template, so we'll be meeting this wednesday to work out some of those details, and come up with a todo list before we can publish
MK: I'm happy with the outcome of the meeting and where we landed, it feels like things are on track
MK: once we're on the WAI website, we'll no longer be a big long note doc, and no longer versioned
JK: we're going to meet tomorrow morning to go through issues
JK: Sean has a question about the skip-to, and Jon wanted to talk about skip-to this meeting
<Jem> https://
JK: WAI comes with a skip to content button, so it's asking about our skip to content component
JG: from what I saw in the issue, it looks like the skip-to is a popup, and I guess I feel that really negates the value of the skip-to. I put some info in the issue
<Jem> https://
JG: I think there are 3 things it helps promote: 1) if it's statically on the website, anyone can access it. So these landmarks and headings are available to everyone. You could choose not to click on it, but if you do, these concepts of landmarks and headings are actually useful to you by providing a high-level outline to the page
JG: so this is a step in awareness for people to start learning about these concepts
JG: 2) if it's visible all the time, authors will be more careful about how they use landmarks and headings, and hopefully learn how to use them in more functional ways
JG: it doesn't show every landmark and heading, but it does show a quick check if the page still makes sense
JG: and obviously the WCAG req to bypass blocks of content, and this provides a way for keyboard users to not only go to the main content, but also other sections of content. Even screen reader users might find use in it, since it's a filtered list
JG: I think the reason it should be visible is it will help raise awareness. I know in my work headings are often abused for style rather than structure
JG: those are my main arguments
JG: if there needs to be any changes to the code, I'm happy to work with them
JG: I do feel it should look like a natural part of the website, and not gaudy
MK: what makes theirs appear, is it just tab?
JG: I don't know, they said if you hit tab, the skip to pops up, and it's a big gaudy yellow button
JG: and it just seemed the antithesis of the whole skip to content
<Jem> jon's info is https://
MK: and is the way we have it in our netlify preview right now?
<Jem> https://
MK: is the way we have it on the netlify link, is the jump-to presented the way you would expect?
JG: no, because it's only visible when you tab to it
MK: oh, really?
JG: really! That's the way the rest of the world does it
MK: in the current APG, the one that's published
JG: that one is visible all the time, the way we want it
MK: lets go to one of the preview examples, I want to make sure I know...
MK: I'll go to accordion
JG: they're all hidden now
MK: so it's not correctly done in our preview
MK: OK, that sucks
JN: I don't think we should have it visible all the time, because I don't think that's the way the web works, and people will reject it if it's visible all the time
MK: so how do we have it integrated visually in our current example pages now?
JG: they're visible, just at the top of the page
<Jem> https://
SH: it's like an upside down tab at the top
MK: I'm most keep to hear your objection, James, to the way it's currently presented on our example pages
JN: I just feel like it's very heavy, especially if you're looking at mouse and touch users, who, lets be honest, don't care about this at all. So why clutter the display with something they don't care about?
JG: I guess I have a different view, I think they just haven't had it. I think a touch user would like it
JK: if I summarize, if we put this as part of a template, maybe some users will complain about it
JK: what Jon mentioned is like a table of contents, that has a utiltiy people don't see yet
JK: I can see both sides
JN: so if we are going to display it to everybody, it needs to have a different name. Skip to content isn't good, if that's not intended as a keyboard thing
SH: I was also going to suggest that it should be called something else
JK: I think every site has the skip to content for now
MK: what do you mean every site? Every w3c site?
JK: yes
JG: I don't think so, the main w3c site doesn't have a skip link or landmarks
JN: I think the WAI sites do
MK: the WAI sites are super inconsistent, and some have weird skip link in the middle of the page that are crap
<Jem> Shawn's comment, "I’m missing how having an always visible "Skip To Content" would help that? And, I actually worry it might “backfire” with authors who feel that it always visible is inelegant and cluttering?"
MK: I'm just going to throw a harebrained idea out. Is there any merit to potentially integrating the ToC/skip-to into the logo itself? Like the W3C logo so there's a way that maybe clicking on the logo would give you a link to the homepage but also show the skip to functions?
JG: I think the button needs to tell people what it does. To me, skip to content, is what it does
JG: whether you're a keyboard user, or a touch user, it'll take you to that piece of content. I'm not sure skip to content is the worst thing
JN: so if I, as a touch user, I would never think to tap it to see what's underneath it. I'm not used to the term, i wouldn't think I need it. If it's showing a ToC or site structure, we should make it clear that's what it's doing
MK: is there an icon for this? I'd love to have a designer on it
JG: the words can be customized, if we have an icon, that'd be great too
MK: I wonder for space, if the visible label was just ToC, something small, and also an icon, if that would make it visibly more compact
MK: still big enough, easy to hit, but is this a design issue primarily?
MK: in order to overcome objections, do you think it could be addressed through a more universally attractive presentation?
JN: yes. If we have something universally visible, it needs to look elegant and not bolted on top. It needs to be integrated into the design
JG: I agree 100%, I should look like it's designed into the page
JK: the concern was that it looks inelegant and cluttering
MK: both Sean and Isaac have a design background. If we put them on this, to come up with some options for the group to consider. It feels like a worthy project to me
MK: does anybody disagree with the idea of putting some more effort and energy into this?
MK: somehow it does feel to me like we're trying to move a11y more to the forefront in a meaningful way, and make it more universally appealing
JK: yeah, and it seems doable
MK: Jon, thank you for pushing the issue
JG: I agree, this is one area where we can make hidden a11y info more visible to people
JG: not enough people understand this stuff, so anything we can do to make this more salient and functional, use of landmarks and headings will be incrementally improved on the web
MK: we'll put a little resource behind it