Meeting minutes
Review Agenda and Next Meeting Date
<Matt_King> Next meeting date is April 18.
<Matt_King> See agenda at https://
Status of Site Updates
Matt_King: We've been working for many months to get the support tables in place on four example pages
Matt_King: Listed in the agenda, I have all the updates we're ready to do
Matt_King: There are three from jongund that have already been merged
Matt_King: I think we're ready to go with the new "About" page--ready to merge that today
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: We also have a draft of a W3C blog post that the WAI team has looked at. It's also in the hands of people at Vispero, James Craig at Apple, and the ARIA chairs
Matt_King: What we need to coordinate now, is exactly when we push the buttons to move the new content into production. Also, the communications plan (blog posts, social media messaging)
shawn: How does this work relate to the existing test cases and data provided by Power Mapper for ARIA support
Matt_King: It has no relation to that
<Jem> https://
shawn: The community will ask that question. Was PowerMapper involved in this work?
Matt_King: We've had involvement with AssitivLabs and of course Michael Fairchild, but I'm not familiar with PowerMapper's data
Jem: This testing project uses APG examples, which differentiates it from PowerMapper
Jem: This testing project has a continuity of work between ARIA and APG
kevin: The data that PowerMapper has is atomic tests that look at very specific ARIA attributes, looking at how those perform in a wide variety of browser-and-screen-reader combinations
kevin: I'd like to ensure that there's no claim about the novelty of this work because there is some overlap with what PowerMapper has done in that past
kevin: Is there an opportunity to reach out to the people at PowerMapper?
Matt_King: We did quite a bit of outreach four years ago, and I'm pretty sure PowerMapper was on our list back then
Matt_King: It's not clear how PowerMapper has decided what "support" actually means
Matt_King: That's an important difference, almost philosophical in some senses
jamesn: agreed with Matt_King in that this project is explicitly seeking agreement from implementers
jamesn: Additionally, because this project operates on APG patterns and is therefore higher-level
Daniel: I can understand why people might initially perceive the two projects to be related, though I also agree with what Matt_King and jamesn have said
Matt_King: The announcement I have drafted demonstrates this distinction, although it doesn't reference other projects by name. That would be somewhat pointed, and it would also assume that the audience is familiar with the other projects
Matt_King: It's pointing out the uniqueness without making explicit comparisons
jongund: Reviewing their test cases, it seems difficult to understand the intention behind the tests. I also have some concerns about the quality
kevin: I can appreciate what's been said. I worry about being dismissive of the work that PowerMapper has done
kevin: When I re-read the blog, there wasn't massive amounts that claimed about being unique or "all-new". So I'm currently less concerned about that
shawn: Let's focus on the publication specifics and then return to the messaging
shawn: I'm not clear on the status. I have a pull request that said "ready to review", but it sounds like there are things being added to it
shawn: I heard you say that the data is approved by the vendors, but then there's a caution that says the data is not approved
Matt_King: The vendors approved the wording of that caution statement. It says "Unapproved report". They approved the process of moving forward. The data is public
Matt_King: What we're doing by putting it in APG is magnifying it's visibility
Matt_King: We've been making sure Apple and Vispero are on board with this publication
shawn: There are some minor things about visual design and usability. They shouldn't hold up the publication, but moving forward, they are things I should be able to review these in advance
Matt_King: I thought we were good on that front, actually
shawn: It's possible that I've missed some things!
Matt_King: Alex: can I merge 2558 after this meeting? Is pulling that in a big job for you?
Alex: No; it should take about 2 hours
shawn: Alex, in the mean time, can you change the status of that pull request to "draft"?
Alex: sure
shawn: Regarding messaging, this might need a follow-up discussion with a smaller group
Matt_King: Can we talk about synchonization?
Matt_King: We need a little bit of time to make sure there are no technical difficulties in going live before making the announcement
Matt_King: I'm thinking the soonest we want to merge is on Thursday so that we can either make the announcement on Friday or Monday. Does that sound good to you?
shawn: probably. I'd like to discuss a few specific things about the blog post--possibly including the W3C comms team
shawn: That could push the schedule back
shawn: There are some vendor neutrality concerns, for example
Jem: If vendor neutrality becomes an issue, how long will it take to resolve it?
shawn: We could take them out, but if we want to keep them, we'll have to talk to comms, and I don't know how that will fit in their work queue.
Pull request reviews
PR 2643 - Datepicker Modal Dialog: Updated code and fixed next/prev month bug by jongund
github: w3c/
Matt_King: It looks like arigilmore_ has done her piece
Matt_King: Looks like it's just for me and Alex to wrap up
PR 2622 - Listbox Examples: Update scrolling of listbox item with focus into view when page is magnified by jongund
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I was still doing some work on the editorial content
<Jem> aleena's comment, w3c/
Matt_King: Aleena identified an issue that we have neither addressed nor raised a separate issue for
jongund: I think it's a separate issue because this issue is about fixing a focus issue with magnification
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: I'm fine with not adding more to this pull request. We just have to make a new issue
Jem: I can make the issue
Matt_King: There's one other issue with this review. It says that jongund is reviewing the tests, but jongund is the author. We need someone else to review the tests!
<Jem> I created the issue, w3c/
jongund: There's still an issue with the behavior
Matt_King: I'm going to convert the pull request to "draft" form so that Alex doesn't review it before jongund fixes that last issue
<Jem> PR 2670: Add landmark pattern page by mcking65
Matt_King: When jongund is done with that, we'll request from you, Alex
PR 2670: Add landmark pattern page by mcking65
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This is strictly editorial. There's no design work or coding work to review
Matt_King: We just need a couple people to look at the content and make sure we're good
Matt_King: This is a page within the "patterns" section for landmarks
Jem: The WAI preview failed to build
Matt_King: That's strange; why didn't it rebuild when I fixed the syntax error?
Alex: I'll look into it
Andrea: I can review the pull request
MarkMcCarthy: I can also review
CurtBellew: I'll review, too
Alex: this failed because it requires changes to the WAI-ARIA-Practices repo
Alex: assign it to Carmen at Bocoup (ccanash on Bocoup), and she'll pass it to the right person
New Issue Action Planning
Switch Pattern: probably not exactly "interchangable" with checkboxes
github: w3c/
Matt_King: We've talked about this before. Basically, whether or not the APG should say anything about this kind of common idea that switches take effect immediately while checkboxes imply some separate "submission" action will cause change to take place
Matt_King: Is it the place of APG to talk about this kind of difference?
MarkMcCarthy: This feels more like a design thing to me
Matt_King: For every single widget, we talk about its common use in the opening paragraph of the pattern
<Jem> https://
<Jem> A switch is an input widget that allows users to choose one of two values: on or off. Switches are similar to checkboxes and toggle buttons, which can also serve as binary inputs.
Matt_King: Would anyone ever make a decision about which role to use based on whether or not there's an accompanying "submit" button? Or are they going to make the decision based on the appearance
siri: A checkbox is used in different ways. It's not always used in a form that needs to be submitted
Matt_King: I think the second paragraph is sort of talking about this.
<Jem> "One difference, however, is that switches can only be used for binary input while checkboxes and toggle buttons allow implementations the option of supporting a third middle state. Checkboxes can be checked or not checked and can optionally also allow for a partially checked state. Toggle buttons can be pressed or not pressed and can optionally allow for a partially pressed state."
Matt_King: It's saying what is the accessibility reason for choosing the role
Matt_King: our goal is to help people choose the best ARIA role
jugglinmike: This feels somewhat like the "link versus button" design decision. That's a lot more prevalent that this one, but they both get at the UI concept of "feed forward"
Matt_King: Let's see if the reporter is satisfied by that second paragraph