Meeting minutes
Mike Pennisi (Bocoup)
Setup and Review Agenda
Jem: should we meet next week?
Matt_King: I'm available to meet
[general agreement about holding a meeting next week]
Matt_King: Okay, then. Let's have a meeting next week!
<Jem> https://
Editor's Draft Sunset Complete
Matt_King: the editor's draft was showing the old, large document
Matt_King: We've now replaced it with a nice list of links to the current site
Matt_King: In addition, all of the examples now link to the current site
Matt_King: For example, the Accordion Example page https://
Matt_King: If anyone finds an issue, please report and issue
<Jem> w3c/
Jem: a good question raised in w3c/
Matt_King: We're still working this out. We can continue updating the change history page until we get better support for the change history that's built into the footer
Matt_King: For major changes (that don't expect just one page), we might want to continue offering a "change history"
Jem: For now, I'll point them to the "change history" page in the "About page"
Jem: Can we say how often we will update the "change history" page?
Matt_King: We want to automate it, and we have an issue to automate it, but that issue has been in the backlog since May
New About Section Content
Jem: We talked about this new content last week w3c/
Matt_King: I received some feedback that I still haven't implemented
Matt_King: I hope to implement it by next week's meeting
Matt_King: So by next week, we should have a preview which includes the actual design and I will have incorporated last week's feedback
Status of Site Updates
Matt_King: We have a couple of fixes
Matt_King: A preview for a fix to the magnification issue https://
jongund: It looks like it's working--the headings are disappearing correctly
Matt_King: AlexFlenniken has approved this
jongund: 2606 and 2601 describe the same issue
Matt_King: For support tables, it looks like Alex has shared a link to a patch
Yup; it implements 11 of the 12 changes that Matt_King requested (we agreed to defer one of them). It's blocked right now on some fixes to the deployment process.
I'm going to help out with that, so we should have a preview deployed within the next few days
Matt_King: I'll share out a preview link once it's available
Matt_King: We have two different features: same-level navigation and card list-view toggle. Do we have a preference between them?
Matt_King: A preference for which we work on first, that is
jongund: I think same-level navigation is more important
Jem: I agree
CurtBellew: I lean that way, too
Matt_King: That's what Bocoup had tee'd up
howard-e: I think merging 2640 right now would be good w3c/
howard-e: I think we can rename 2636 to be about Node 18 specifically w3c/
Pull Request Review
Combobox Date Picker Example: Change previous and next month and year behavior for dates near end of month by jongund · Pull Request #2618 · w3c/aria-practices
<Github> w3c/
github: w3c/
Matt_King: Do we have reviewers assigned?
Jem: Yup: shirsha, Matt_King, and James
Matt_King: I don't remember James agreeing to that, so we should remove them
Jem: done
Matt_King: shirsha will be reviewing for functionality, and I think I asked AlexFlennikan to perform code review
jongund: It also updates tests
jongund: there's a file that was changed that shouldn't have been changed, so I'll fix that
Matt_King: I'll do editorial and functional review
Listbox Examples: Update scrolling of listbox item with focus into view when page is magnified by jongund · Pull Request #2622 · w3c/aria-practices
<Github> w3c/
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This had a bunch of changes and it needed a bunch of review
jongund: the ESLint linter is complaining about a coding pattern we're using in listbox.js
jongund: I tried using modules, but the linter doesn't like that, either
howard-e: I have no suggestion right now, but I can take a look
Matt_King: is the linter forcing a good practice? That's something I can't answer--it seems like a code style and engineering thing.
jongund: A simple fix would be to define the listbox class in each of the four examples that use it, but then you'd have code duplicated.
I'll take a look and give jongund some advice
Landmark examples: Updated SkipTo script and configuration by jongund · Pull Request #2624 · w3c/aria-practices
<Github> w3c/
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I haven't gotten to this yet, so we'll keep it on the list
Landmark examples: Updated SkipTo script and configuration
github: w3c/
jongund: This is a simple fix
Matt_King: Kurt, I may assign this to you, but we can include it in next week's agenda
jongund: This solution works for this example. I don't know if it work in a general way
Accordion Animation
Matt_King: In a meeting a long time ago, people were complaining that the accordion was jerky, and they suggested to add animation
Matt_King: We decided that we could make it animated, and we put an issue in the backlog. That was almost five years ago!
Matt_King: JAWS-test recently commented that animation is a WCAG issue
Matt_King: But the type of animation you would add here does not seem like the type of animation that WCAG is referring to
Jem: [reads the relevant text from https://
Matt_King: We could agree to not add animation, or we add animation and use the CSS media query for "prefers reduced motion"
CurtBellew: Oracle animates their accordions. They're useful--I think they make them easier to use visually
CurtBellew: I don't feel strongly that animations are a necessity, though
[general discussion about the value of animation]
Matt_King: This sounds like it would be a positive and it doesn't sound like it violates WCAG 2.3.3, especially if we use "prefers reduced motion"
Matt_King: So let's go for it and resolve this old issue
Jem: I'll mention this issue in Sarah's pull request