14:54:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #openui
14:54:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-openui-irc
15:04:19 <bkardell_> bkardell_ has joined #openui
15:04:56 <bkardell_> present+
15:07:24 <gregwhitworth> Topic: [accordion] Differing interpretations/models of exclusivity #752
15:07:24 <gregwhitworth> github: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/752
15:07:32 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: there's maybe two different accordion things we could discuss, bkardell_ raised this one
15:07:47 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: there are different notions of exclusive accordions across design systems
15:08:06 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: the brief distinction is the more common one is either 0 or more items to be open at a time
15:08:35 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: the less common one is, Google Pixel product page, it is exactly 1; rather than 0 or 1
15:08:53 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: it starts with 1 open and there is no way to close the opened one without opening another
15:09:02 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I think it was FAST that did it as well
15:09:13 <scotto> scotto has joined #openui
15:09:22 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: one of them has the option to be exclusive and it does it this way but it's controls are a little weird
15:09:41 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: my proposal to handle this that we should say that if you want to do this you need to do it from script
15:10:07 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: since it's not that common and it requires unusual UI to do it well to have the disappearing control we don't provide it as part of the platform
15:10:09 <gregwhitworth> q?
15:10:12 <bkardell_> q+
15:10:21 <gregwhitworth> ack bkardell_
15:10:38 <chrishtr> present+
15:10:46 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: my concern here is that it seems to be out of vogue
15:10:54 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: but it used to be the dominant paradigm
15:10:59 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: it's just tabs rarely
15:11:11 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: for the exclusive version of this, most libs used to have this
15:11:24 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I call it the highlander one but there has to be 1 at all times
15:12:04 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: one note I wanted to make, there are three or four systems that do it
15:12:12 <gregwhitworth> q+
15:12:22 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I called it exact exclusive
15:12:56 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I don't think we're far enough along in this proposal to say that I disagree, but I'd love to file issues on those systems and have them weigh in
15:13:07 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I suspect a lot of them will have some insights or maybe none
15:13:12 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: we would benefit from that
15:13:35 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: the reason it matters is the way in which you need to spec this is very different
15:13:43 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: they're basically radio buttons
15:14:03 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: radio buttons, can be none but if you select one; there has to be one
15:14:14 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I think either goes down that weirdish path
15:14:37 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I haven't seen the radio button scenario where it starts off at 0 but then when you go to 1 it then can't go to 0
15:14:44 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: this really matters?
15:15:01 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: the always 1 introduces a few issues how to specify it
15:15:42 <dbaron> Scribe+ bkardell_
15:15:59 <dbaron> Scribe: gregwhitworth
15:16:01 <bkardell_> gregwhitworth: I dont disagree that there are use cases, but I agree the specification has to change
15:16:03 <dbaron> Scribe+ bkardell_
15:16:39 <bkardell_> gregwhitworth: it sounds like david has tackled the 90% use case - let's theoretically pretend we add an attribute later on that is exclusive - could be implement it after the fact
15:16:59 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I think it can probably be added, but it's somewhat awkward
15:17:09 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: the markup for this pattern is that there is no container
15:17:34 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: it's linking a bunch of details elements with the name attribute
15:17:51 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: which one wins, it's a little weird
15:18:19 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: anyone could argue that if you have a default in exclusive accordions and if any one of them is not defined as opened the first one is open
15:18:28 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: that's probably fine
15:18:47 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: it would mean that if you took one out you would have to search the tree to find the next first one
15:19:01 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: I think we can add this on later
15:19:07 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: do you think that's a bad thing to do?
15:19:27 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I think the purpose of the group is to pave the cowpaths and present something and I think we're reading tea leaves here a bit
15:19:36 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I won't stand in the way of progress
15:20:05 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I think it would be a good practice for us to bring in folks with library with differences that they do have good research for why they did what they did
15:20:11 <scotto> q+
15:20:18 <gregwhitworth> ack gregwhitworth
15:20:34 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: I agree, but we also need to incubate things to improve the platform
15:20:37 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: agreed
15:20:59 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: in the interest of the second, that's where my suggestion is to not do it for now to reduce the complexity
15:21:06 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: do you disagree
15:21:19 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: no, I think we're early enough; it's a reasonable suggestion
15:21:27 <gregwhitworth> ack scotto
15:21:35 <gregwhitworth> scotto: one thing about this, well two things
15:22:19 <gregwhitworth> scotto: while we're looking at radio buttons as a paradigm to not hold them on a pedestal and when you make a choice you can never undo it the need to unselect things so they move to checkboxes and get other issues
15:22:39 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I personally think this is a good way for us to create a distinction between tabs and accordions behave
15:22:59 <gregwhitworth> scotto: since tabs have aria semantics and accordions don't have actual mappings to speak of
15:23:26 <gregwhitworth> scotto: a tab widget where there is one with always a persistent tab but an accordion can be something 0 - 1
15:23:36 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: we got here because it's a better pattern
15:23:56 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: there are a lot of subtle interactions and I want to ensure folks that aren't in this room
15:24:07 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I think we could leverage this until told otherwise
15:24:18 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: agreed, but let's invite
15:24:29 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: so you're agreeing with dbaron and myself?
15:24:32 <gregwhitworth> scotto: yeah
15:24:48 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I would like us to generally try to not make one thing be everything
15:25:03 <gregwhitworth> scotto: we've come up with one thing that does 17 different things
15:25:41 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: for this specific issue is probably two pieces for a resolution
15:26:16 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: 1. The current plan of record is this exclusive thing needs to be done in script and I will try and reach out to the people that design these widgets to get feedback
15:26:36 <dbaron> s/exclusive/exact exclusive/
15:27:26 <gregwhitworth> Proposed Resolution: Exact exclusive will not be a part of the proposal at this time and we'll tell people it needs to be done in script
15:28:09 <gregwhitworth> RESOLVED: Exact exclusive will not be a part of the proposal at this time and we'll tell people it needs to be done in script
15:28:43 <github-bot> Topic: Proposal for Exclusive Accordions
15:29:04 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I notice there aren't many people on the call today
15:29:18 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: one of the ideas behind this proposal; try and do some small things that we can do faster
15:29:29 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: and part of trying to do that; how fast is faster essentially
15:29:45 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: given the number of people I don't want to constrain this too much today
15:29:59 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: how much discussion should we have this in Open UI before we open an HTML PR
15:30:06 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: it's not going to get merged tomorrow
15:30:30 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: we should open it up to the wider group, probably next week when there are more before we do that
15:30:32 <gregwhitworth> q+
15:30:43 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: asking preliminarily?
15:30:54 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: yes, relevant folks are here but will wait for next week
15:31:08 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: in particular there were two areas to verify
15:31:19 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: 1 - details and summary can be used as the basis of this?
15:31:29 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: I want to ensure that we can and know of any blockers
15:31:36 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: a11y and styling dimensions to that
15:31:46 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: other than that - I think things are straight forward and has legs
15:31:57 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I have been trying to make parallel progress on those other topics
15:32:22 <gregwhitworth> scotto: in regards to going quickly; I've brought up a number of things where it's footgun but with this specific effort
15:32:41 <gregwhitworth> scotto: doing something this useful and not addressing the underlying issues will be more widely used
15:32:56 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the a11y concerns will be there either way; they don't block your work
15:33:07 <gregwhitworth> scotto: there are some things we can talk about a bit more
15:33:33 <gregwhitworth> scotto: they already have an expand and collapse state that can open and close but what happens when you're in this grouping that can close something that is no longer functional
15:33:45 <gregwhitworth> scotto: do we need to add in a disabled state that currently isn't present
15:34:06 <gregwhitworth> scotto: is it inset and mappings that can be updated of X number things that are toggle buttons
15:34:19 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I'm on the first of 1 of N and it's expanded so I know the others are not
15:34:39 <gregwhitworth> scotto: and that can be done relatively quickly and defer to Aaron on speed of mappings to get into the platform
15:35:04 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the a11y content model issues with details and summary will always remain; I don't know how much we can fix these things
15:35:15 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: are there some that are not fixable with any design, or legacy?
15:35:21 <gregwhitworth> scotto: a little bit of both
15:35:52 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I've seen accordions where there is a primary trigger and then a paragraph that comes after that with "more...." that can be expanded/collapsed
15:36:18 <gregwhitworth> scotto: if I have a "heading" and follow that up with a paragraph and a table all of that becomes the a11y name for this control and people can and do this
15:36:37 <gregwhitworth> scotto: significantly change how this is constructed because "ALL" of it is the trigger
15:37:03 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: sounds like you want some additional text that is visible to improve the a11y name
15:37:18 <gregwhitworth> scotto: that doesn't need to get in the way to make details summary into an accordion
15:37:30 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: I think that could be addressed with a child of details
15:37:45 <dbaron> chrishtr: summary-subheading or whatever
15:37:51 <gregwhitworth> scotto: yes, there are things that need to happen now, no but how do we push this forward?
15:37:53 <dbaron> Scribe+ dbaron
15:38:15 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I was just going to mention to put the toggle button on the agenda today?
15:38:19 <dbaron> Present+
15:38:23 <dbaron> Present+ gregwhitworth
15:38:30 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: we've discussed that one
15:38:43 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: dbaron do you want to discuss why you think this is better
15:38:57 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: some of the toggle button stuff runs into the issues we faced with CSS Toggles
15:39:31 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: one thing that does some showing/hiding of content but you don't know what kind of thing it is so you can use it for multiple widgets and maybe those things should be distinguished?
15:39:47 <dbaron> Present+ scotto
15:39:49 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the issue that I take with that is that the same thing could be said of details/summary
15:40:00 <gregwhitworth> scotto: they can be strung together to make a tree component
15:40:20 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the only thing that it can't be done is a typical tab solution
15:40:42 <gregwhitworth> scotto: it is limiting in some of the layouts that you can do because you HAVE to have a summary inside of your details
15:41:08 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the toggle button was done with popover but it would not be about promoting something to the top layer and rendering it to the DOM
15:41:21 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the open/close hamburger thing it doesn't need to be top layer
15:42:13 <gregwhitworth> scotto: a lot of problems with details/summary and their current mappings are completely bypassed because you can have a button inside of a heading but with a summary it can be screwy depending on if it is in a summary
15:42:38 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I wasn't saying that that toggle has to be involved in details/summary but it was a primitive to build with
15:42:50 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: but if in history we did a toggle button, we would be in a different place
15:43:09 <gregwhitworth> scotto: it's a basic piece that could be used as a building block to build a lot of other components
15:43:45 <gregwhitworth> scotto: with the whole popover thing is that no one could explain what it was because it could be so many different things when we created it first as an element
15:44:10 <gregwhitworth> scotto: the button already has is to have HTML & ARIA and it's been over a decade of this and it hasn't come to pass
15:44:24 <gregwhitworth> scotto: it seems to have a button to be able to toggle content but haven't added it to the platform
15:46:21 <bkardell_> q+
15:47:17 <gregwhitworth> ack gregwhitworth
15:47:46 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: the other core question we had, are there things that are not fixable about details & summary with work; and we don't think they're un-fixable
15:47:53 <gregwhitworth> scotto: yeah, I think that's largely true
15:48:40 <gregwhitworth> scotto: I mean, unpopular opinion, HTML being very permissive has cause many a11y issues whereas if they were more strict so there is no way that we can stop people from putting things inside the summary element, so that's always going to be there
15:48:50 <gregwhitworth> scotto: it was more important to render something than break
15:49:00 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: right, even a new element would have that issue
15:49:25 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: let's put them on the roadmap and get them filed and the Chrome team will prioritize those to get them fixed
15:49:35 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: please enumerate them
15:49:53 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: I dropped them into the doc that you shared; if you want me to sync up and clean up the doc
15:50:07 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: it's useful but I did some other things yesterday afternoon
15:50:38 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: just wanted to say that um, I get why we want to go really fast and a relatively easy one; it's pretty light on a lot right now
15:50:53 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I will see if there are any issues that I feel like opening or not
15:51:06 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: do you have a fork of HTML that you've been working on with these ideas
15:51:08 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: no
15:51:28 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: so what you're asking is "should you start the HTML PR fork?"
15:51:37 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: yes
15:51:48 <gregwhitworth> bkardell_: I think yes, because when authoring them you end up finding issues
15:51:55 <gregwhitworth> q?
15:51:58 <gregwhitworth> ack bkardell_
15:54:14 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: this isn't about speed but being incremental
15:55:27 <gregwhitworth> dbaron: I should add, the doc I shared with Scott is for it to turn into explainerish and we should leverage it to fix all of the a11y issues and solutions to them
15:56:23 <gregwhitworth> chrishtr: bkardell_ and scotto you both have by far provided the most feedback on this so I want to ensure you're in alignment
15:56:42 <gregwhitworth> scotto: yes, they do it already it just makes easier and it's not something they won't experience today
15:57:05 <gregwhitworth> Zakim, end meeting
15:57:05 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bkardell_, chrishtr, dbaron, gregwhitworth, scotto
15:57:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:57:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-openui-minutes.html Zakim
15:57:11 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, gregwhitworth; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:57:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #openui
16:04:18 <dbaron> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:04:24 <dbaron> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:04:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-openui-minutes.html dbaron
16:04:56 <dbaron> Meeting: Open UI Meeting
16:04:59 <dbaron> Chair: gregwhitworth