17:13:56 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:14:00 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-aria-irc 17:14:00 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:14:31 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 17:14:31 meeting: ARIA WG 17:14:31 agendabot, find agenda 17:14:31 jamesn, OK. This may take a minute... 17:14:31 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/8d225a7e-4595-4c48-924f-6b09c47623c1/20230202T130000 17:14:31 clear agenda 17:14:31 agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3RhVbBz 17:14:31 agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3jqY2vc 17:14:31 agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates 17:14:31 agenda+ -> H1 F2F Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83726/2023F2F/ 17:14:31 agenda+ -> Review deprecation processes for ARIA attributes (and roles?) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1863 17:14:31 agenda+ -> Remove aria-expanded from listbox https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1862 17:14:31 agenda+ -> Readme should document expectations of for New PR template and New Issue template (order, optionality, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1861 17:14:32 agenda+ -> Draft: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec, VoiceOver feedback https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805#discussion_r1091194499 17:14:35 agenda+ -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+ 17:55:55 pkra has joined #aria 17:57:50 Adam_Page has joined #aria 17:58:50 benbeaudry has joined #aria 17:59:43 spectranaut has joined #aria 18:00:53 hi everyone, we have a new zoom link, stay tuned 18:01:35 arigilmore has joined #aria 18:01:50 https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_aria 18:02:16 scottono has joined #aria 18:02:34 that is the old one - don't use that as it is not updated 18:03:48 passcode.... 18:04:33 MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria 18:04:33 james is working on adding the correct link to the invite 18:04:54 siri has joined #Aria 18:05:06 oh did it change? that might explain some things 18:05:08 the correct info is in the meeting invite now 18:07:33 StefanS has joined #aria 18:07:38 present+ 18:08:03 sarah_higley has joined #aria 18:08:59 present+ 18:09:13 present+ 18:09:13 present+ 18:10:16 present+ 18:10:48 present+ 18:10:58 scribe+ 18:11:02 present+ 18:11:02 zakim, next item 18:11:02 agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3RhVbBz -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:11:26 present+ 18:11:31 jamesn: bunch of new issues today 18:11:39 jamesn: #164? 18:11:44 spectranaut: no need to discuss today 18:11:58 jamesn: #1868 - editorial, i'll fix 18:12:03 pkra: give it to me 18:12:34 jamesn: #1866 - tracking issue, editorial, targetd for 1.3 18:13:00 jamesn: the acknowledgement section is getting long, shortening seems good 18:13:16 jamesn: #1865, already made a fix, PR against 1.2 to update participants is out there' 18:13:50 jamesn: should be shortened into a paragraph style, rather than a bulleted list (still a list in markup though so can be easily skipped if needed) 18:14:12 jamesn: #458 - jcraig? 18:14:37 jcraig: scottono and I have talked about it already (btw, ER stands for enhancement request) 18:14:49 jamesn: can we have a label for enhancement or something instead? 18:14:56 spectranaut: make it so! 18:14:58 jcraig: i'm on it 18:16:01 jamesn: #185 - yep, agree. is this a duplicate though? jcraig? 18:16:14 jcraig: yeah, i've got a PR for that 18:16:21 jcraig: will mark it as a dupe 18:17:58 pkra: i don't think your PR necessarily solves this jcraig 18:18:13 jamesn: once we get rid of some of the levels, this may no longer be an issue 18:18:36 jcraig: assign to me in any case, i'll sort it out 18:19:20 jamesn: #184 - could this go into core aam instead? i'd be okay awith that. joanie only wanted things that were different by platform in there, this should be consistent 18:19:50 jamesn: could go into ARIA itself, too 18:19:58 jamesn: once we have the text we can figure out where to put it 18:20:00 scottono: makes sense 18:20:13 sarah_higley: functionally it's already there it's just not descriptive 18:20:35 jamesn: i'm most comfy with accname being its home. might be better to change the shortname though 18:20:37 spectranaut: agree 18:20:56 jamesn: #1863 - on the agenda 18:21:30 jamesn: #457 - agree. will assign scottono 18:21:44 jamesn: #1861 - on the agenda 18:21:46 zakim, next item 18:21:46 agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3jqY2vc -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:22:04 jamesn: #186 - some updates were made, needs reviews 18:22:19 jcraig: would prefer priority for this, will create conflicts the longer it's out there 18:22:49 jamesn: will also add melanie, we'll take whoever approves first (melanie or bryan) 18:22:57 jcraig: should be more editorial than anything 18:23:27 jamesn: other spec that refer to this will need to be changed too, right? e.g. "in step 2D of accname..." 18:24:00 jcraig: in theory the links should still work. if they're still looking for 2C, the list style should still be there 18:24:02 jamesn: oh! got it 18:25:10 jamesn: i'll try to add a githack link so we can see the full preview (with CSS) when i review iy 18:25:12 s/iy/it 18:25:41 matt_king: 2A 2B 2C etc. are still there, right? what happens if we rearrange? 18:26:06 jcraig: we could do that, but the references won't rely on the numbers anymore, will rely on the step title (like "Computation" etc.) 18:26:18 jcraig: any legacy link should remain working in perpetuity 18:27:15 matt_king: wondering if the brokenness of those kinds of static references would be more obvious if the letters weren't there (just a ponderance) 18:27:28 jcraig: that COULD happen, i wanted THIS update to be as minimal as possible 18:28:00 jamesn: next is #1867 - this will be merged, review if you like 18:28:01 pkra: add me 18:28:09 jamesn: daniel, can you merge once peter reviews? 18:28:51 daniel-montalvo: yep, will do 18:29:27 jamesn: #459, already merged 18:29:47 jamesn: #183, has 4 reviewers, no changes, let's get some reviews in 18:29:55 jamesn: #1862, on the agenda 18:30:09 jamesn: #1860, waiting on two reviews 18:30:12 zakim, next item 18:30:12 agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:30:26 jamesn: any proposals? if not, let's move on 18:30:30 [silence] 18:30:33 zakim, close this item 18:30:33 agendum 3 closed 18:30:34 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:30:34 4. -> H1 F2F Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83726/2023F2F/ [from agendabot] 18:30:37 zakim, take up item 4 18:30:37 agendum 4 -- -> H1 F2F Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83726/2023F2F/ -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:31:11 jamesn: survey is out for F2F, please fill out whether you're planning to attend or not (not selecting ANY checkboxes for dates/locations would be read as not attending) 18:31:33 jamesn: there are options to signal attending remotely if that's doable but physical is not 18:31:47 jamesn: the sooner we can do this, the better, for budgets etc 18:31:59 jamesn: current proposal is Adobe or Google hosting 18:32:27 jamesn: i'll send the link out to the list, it's in the agenda if people need it 18:32:35 zakim, next item 18:32:35 agendum 5 -- -> Review deprecation processes for ARIA attributes (and roles?) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1863 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:33:35 jamesn: no process for this right now, would probably be helpful to have 18:34:16 Matt_King has joined #aria 18:34:17 jamesn: from my POV, we shouldn't have to deprecate all changes. not everything being removed, or planning to be removed, should have to go through deprecation before that 18:34:42 present+ 18:35:20 jcraig: one other potential is a synonym. presentation had lots of confusion as to why we didn't deprecate, but added the "none" role and called it a synonnym 18:36:32 Matt_King: another instance of something like that is the application role 18:36:52 jamesn: we tried to guide usage, but there's nothing normative that REQUIRES it only to be used in certain places 18:37:01 Matt_King: we changed that in 1.1 i thought? 18:37:14 jamesn: there's only one MUST in there, discussing non-decorative texxt 18:37:18 s/texxt/text 18:37:39 jamesn: we only really wanted to guide people into NOT using it, not deprecate it 18:38:23 q+ 18:38:27 jamesn: there's been a number of changes made in the spec where we removed the ability to use something on a given element WITHOUT going through a deprecation process. i don't think we should start doing that, as it might cause more confusion than it alleviates 18:38:45 jamesn: formally, sure, it might be good. but in practice it can lead to more confusion than not 18:39:35 spectranaut: seems that it might be whether or not it can be clearly deprecated or not. is it not widely adopted; is it not accessible; does it break something? things like that might not need to go through a deprecation process 18:40:06 jamesn: we got pushback on the globals where people had one of them on their pages, and we removed it/deprecated it because it wasn't doing something useful, and people got confused by that 18:40:49 jamesn: not sure what the difference might be between removing something, deprecating something, or a prohibited attribute. one is just marked as an addition to the spec (prohibited), and the other is marking as deprecated and giving X time before removal 18:41:04 q+ 18:41:09 ack sp 18:41:12 ack sc 18:41:13 spectranaut: this is making me realize we should have an "update validators" step on our review/publication process 18:42:36 scottono: my pov is that, if it's not helpful, and it's causing false positives etc., it's better to just remove and deal with any pushback 18:43:11 jamesn: if something is actively making things worse, it's better just to remove, and not deal with deprecation 18:43:23 scottono: +1 18:43:30 spectranaut: that segues into... 18:43:33 zakim, next item 18:43:33 agendum 6 -- -> Remove aria-expanded from listbox https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1862 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:44:20 jamesn: this almost feels like a red herring; i don't think that's consistent with other removed attributes, feels more like an exception to the rule 18:44:31 sarah_higley: the other attributes mentioned were those global ones 18:44:34 jamesn: and this isn't like that 18:44:48 jamesn: are there thoughts that aria-expanded on a listbox does ANY good? 18:45:05 Matt_King: we DID mark it as deprecated in the APG, has been so for about a year or so 18:46:12 jamesn: the fact we deprecated that in 1.2, then does it make sense to remove them in 1.3? 18:46:14 Matt_King: it does to me 18:46:44 Matt_King: we point people looking for it to the select-only comboboxes, which is now pretty well supported 18:47:09 jamesn: so removing this would be a GOOD thing, because they'd get validation errors if they're using the old 1.1 comboboxes, right? 18:48:37 Matt_King: i don't see any harm - there _may_ have been in 1.2, but there was language added to address concerns with input type=text, so there's no need for expanded on listboxes 18:48:50 jamesn: so then, does the old 1.1 pattern work? 18:49:17 Matt_King: yeah, and the example is still there in the index, but it's not linked from the pattern or other examples 18:49:45 jamesn: so then why remove something that does something people kind of want and works? 18:50:06 Matt_King: it's an antiquated substitute, and the new approaches should work even better 18:50:32 sarah_higley: in theory a menu could be built similarly, with aria-expanded, but we don't support that 18:51:23 sarah_higley: the APG isn't a spec, and a listbox being built that does a bit more harm than good. if we go with precendent that anything announced should be added to a role, that'd be a lot of work to add things to the spec 18:51:46 jamesn: so the listbox expands itself? 18:52:07 Matt_King: not really - when it's collapsed, it's more like a div with one element, then expanding that would create a separate list with listiems 18:52:15 s/listiems/listitems 18:52:30 jamesn: that makes me feel better about removing it, as aria-expanded doesn't technically allow for that 18:52:41 Matt_King: it's definitely a bit wonky 18:52:54 jamesn: so then how about we just remove it? objections? 18:53:06 [silence] 18:53:31 jamesn: i hesitate about the deprecation because i know what the JS is doing and does for that, from when we did the globals, and it's hacky and gross 18:54:08 jamesn: it would make already treacherous code worse 18:54:47 Matt_King: so there is a bit more harm than good; there are implementations out there using it; it'd require validator changes to actually throw an error... 18:55:21 Matt_King: even if we just call it no longer valid or remove it, it doesn't mean things just stop working 18:55:45 sarah_higley: but it doesn't _work well_ as is 18:56:00 jamesn: if things don't work, then we should make the change so validators can let people know 18:56:05 agenda? 18:56:23 sarah_higley: that was from a while ago and I'd have to check again to confirm 18:56:29 jamesn: okay, thanks sarah_higley 18:56:33 zakim, close this item 18:56:33 agendum 6 closed 18:56:34 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:56:34 7. -> Readme should document expectations of for New PR template and New Issue template (order, optionality, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1861 [from agendabot] 18:56:36 zakim, take up item 8 18:56:36 agendum 8 -- -> Draft: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec, VoiceOver feedback https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805#discussion_r1091194499 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:57:06 jamesn: i just want to make sure people have seen this and read it 18:57:42 jcraig: in summary, sarah_higley, aaron, and I had a discussion about this. a lot of it is based on what Apple does for AT 18:58:42 jcraig: this is different, because it doesn't rely on other elements having something done to them, but because we tied it to a click event in the webAPI, there's a chance it could cause a focus change or click on some other element. so we were discussing if it'd undo the benefits of aria-actions 18:58:56 jcraig: i think most people would use it as intended, and the risk is low. 18:59:36 jcraig: we did find some things that'd be unexpected, but the cost to dev and user is minimal, given what the API would allow people to do 19:00:30 jcraig: the question that remains is what happens when authors do this? we could outlaw it in the spec with some MUST NOTs for UAs. my opinion is to synthesize the click anyway, there could be some weirdness, but it should allow users to to figure out what's going on anyway 19:00:44 jcraig: my general view is not to outlaw something authors could use for good 19:00:52 zakim, who is here? 19:00:52 Present: StefanS, scottono, MarkMcCarthy, sarah_higley, Adam_Page, benbeaudry, arigilmore, jcraig, Matt_King 19:00:55 On IRC I see Matt_King, sarah_higley, MarkMcCarthy, scottono, arigilmore, spectranaut, benbeaudry, Adam_Page, pkra, RRSAgent, Zakim, mbgower, tzviya, jamesn, Jem, github-bot, 19:00:55 ... MichaelC, agendabot, JonathanNeal, jcraig, timeless, ZoeBijl, bigbluehat, gregwhitworth, slightlyoff, chrishtr, Josh_Soref, adarose, Jamie, clafase, Mike5Matrix, leobalter, 19:00:55 ... trackbot, daniel-montalvo 19:01:12 present+ 19:01:26 present+ daniel-montalvo jamesn pkra 19:03:21 Matt_King: i have some comments about this that I'll leave in the issue 19:03:30 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:03:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy 20:09:26 howard-e has joined #aria 20:31:44 jongund has joined #aria 21:13:27 howard-e has joined #aria 21:19:36 jongund has joined #aria 21:37:58 jongund has joined #aria 21:39:57 jongund has joined #aria 22:06:19 jongund has joined #aria 22:23:29 jongund has joined #aria 22:43:59 jongund has joined #aria