14:57:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #openui
14:57:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-openui-irc
14:57:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #openui
14:57:49 <gregwhitworth> Zakim, start meeting
14:57:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:57:51 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), gregwhitworth
14:57:57 <gregwhitworth> meeting: Open UI
14:58:34 <gregwhitworth> chair: Greg Whitworth
14:59:19 <gregwhitworth> gregwhitworth has changed the topic to: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/blob/main/meetings/telecon/2023-06-01.md
15:00:04 <Brecht_DR> Brecht_DR has joined #openui
15:02:13 <una> una has joined #openui
15:03:14 <masonf> masonf has joined #openui
15:03:38 <gregwhitworth> scribenick: jarhar
15:03:45 <gregwhitworth> Topic: Should we change the meeting day/time to be more inclusive
15:03:45 <masonf> present+
15:03:53 <Brecht_DR> present+
15:03:58 <gregwhitworth> github: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/665
15:04:30 <jarhar> masonf: i dont want to introduce it as a sleepiness thing, theres a push to go back to the office and when this is at 8am its impossible to make it to the office
15:04:42 <jarhar> masonf: i would love to propose that we move it to 9am pacific time
15:04:59 <jarhar> greg: scott i think you recommended monday at 9am
15:05:06 <jarhar> masonf: i got two thumbs up on that
15:05:12 <jarhar> masonf: mondays tend to be lower meeting days
15:05:30 <jarhar> greg: i would love to move it to monday regardless of time
15:05:46 <jarhar> greg: would prefer 9
15:05:59 <jarhar> greg: would love for those on east coast or europe to weigh in
15:06:13 <Brecht_DR> q+
15:06:17 <jarhar> una: i prefer on monday, but i do have a standing conflict at 9, but thats ok because i can make sure anything i want to talk about is at the start of the meeting
15:06:26 <jarhar> una: sometimes gets moved though
15:06:30 <jarhar> masonf: could do 8:30
15:06:48 <gregwhitworth> ack Brecht_DR
15:06:50 <jarhar> masonf: also slightly better for the europeans as well
15:07:30 <jarhar> dbaron: as an east coast person im pretty much used to having meetings at lunchtime, i can deal with it as long as its not a solid block from eating to 3
15:07:37 <jarhar> dbaron: i do often eat during the css call actually
15:07:51 <jarhar> brecht: im from belgium and now its about 5pm here
15:08:08 <jarhar> brecht: theres a bit of a situation, most people work til 5pm, i had the chance to stay in the office for this
15:08:18 <jarhar> brecht: 5:30 for me would be a bit harder, because then im between zones
15:08:31 <jarhar> brecht: 6pm or 7pm would be fine for me
15:08:41 <jarhar> brecht: just to give an idea, this might be a trickier timezone
15:08:49 <jarhar> brecht: hidde is also from holland, about the same timezone
15:08:57 <jarhar> greg: yours is dealing with commute?
15:08:58 <jarhar> brecht: yeah
15:09:03 <jarhar> masonf: does that apply to hidde?
15:09:17 <jarhar> brecht: i think it does, im not completely sure
15:09:40 <jarhar> brecht: mondays i work from home so that wouldnt matter to me
15:09:51 <jarhar> brecht: 6pm or 7pm would be better than 5:30 because then were in between zones
15:09:52 <masonf> q?
15:09:54 <masonf> q
15:09:55 <jarhar> greg: would you prefer 6 or 7?
15:09:59 <masonf> =q+
15:09:59 <masonf> q+
15:10:00 <jarhar> brecht: doesnt really matter that much
15:10:21 <jarhar> greg: so youre recommending 9am or 10am
15:10:29 <jarhar> greg: so you would prefer 11am pst
15:10:39 <jarhar> masonf: not all the people are on this call
15:10:51 <jarhar> masonf: i could put a vote for 6 different times
15:10:52 <jarhar> greg: do the emoji thing
15:11:09 <jarhar> una: also do the 11am monday
15:11:24 <jarhar> dbaron: 11am monday would be 8pm for brecht
15:11:37 <jarhar> brecht: still would be quite ok, 8pm could also work
15:12:01 <jarhar> brecht: it used to be 8pm for me a while back, but it was 2am for those in asian countries
15:12:17 <jarhar> masonf: ill have an "other" category in case we didn't hit one that somebody wants
15:12:40 <gregwhitworth> Topic: Focusgroup move to WHATWG
15:12:53 <gregwhitworth> github: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/734
15:13:19 <jarhar> greg: luke opened this, focusgroup was first proposed by microsoft to this group
15:13:29 <jarhar> greg: it laid dormant pretty quickly once it moved over to this group
15:13:36 <jarhar> greg: microsoft has had a lot of reshuffling since
15:13:48 <jarhar> greg: luke is saying that if we made a PR over to whatwg it would move faster because implementors are there
15:13:52 <masonf> q?
15:14:12 <jarhar> greg: similar to popover, recognizing being relatively newer to the group that that did start here, then we landed it in whatwg
15:14:24 <jarhar> greg: he is proposing moving focusgroup, he is kind of saying a PR, over to whatwg
15:14:33 <scotto> scotto has joined #openui
15:14:48 <jarhar> greg: it raises a question, it needs a champion. its a ui concept of grouping, i would prefer it to stay here
15:15:00 <jarhar> greg: what should we be doing with things that become stale
15:15:02 <una> q+
15:15:10 <jarhar> greg: somebody started it, we havent put a lot of time into it
15:15:35 <jarhar> greg: do we get rid of this and recommend someone move it to whatwg. what do we want to do with proposals that got stale
15:15:41 <gregwhitworth> ack masonf
15:15:54 <jarhar> masonf: on focusgroup i thought, travis at microsoft was working on it, i thought they had a spec pr
15:16:02 <jarhar> masonf: it was pretty far along, implemented with origin trials
15:16:15 <jarhar> masonf: i dont know if we should locate a spec pr
15:16:21 <jarhar> masonf: that was on my list of things to try to do this year
15:16:30 <jarhar> masonf: ill leave your more general question for after
15:16:31 <scotto> q+
15:16:33 <gregwhitworth> ack una
15:16:58 <jarhar> una: i guess my question is what is the goal for focusgroup. do we need more discussion? it seems like a complex ax focused feature because it talks about this adds a logical grouping that has keyboard navigation
15:17:03 <jarhar> una: theres so many asterisks with ax
15:17:10 <jarhar> una: there could be more discussions for edge cases
15:17:26 <jarhar> una: this could be a venue to talk about that, but it needs a champion to keep the conversation going and take this forward, and we dont have that right now
15:17:31 <jarhar> una: unless this is going to be luke
15:17:56 <jarhar> greg: i agree with the chamption statement. he hasnt stated that, that there is a desire to pick that up, just wants to see it move forward, just going off two sentences
15:18:37 <jarhar> una: as far as marking things as stale, we could have a github bot that says things are going to become stale
15:18:44 <jarhar> greg: we already have this, its 6 months
15:18:48 <jarhar> greg: its for issues solely, not on the actual site
15:19:05 <jarhar> una: there should be some kind of mechanism to say whether its in active development or not
15:19:11 <jarhar> greg: lets set that one aside, thats issue 2
15:19:14 <gregwhitworth> ack dbaron
15:19:40 <jarhar> dbaron: the current state of focusgroup in chromium is that theres an explainer that has quite a lot of stuff in it
15:19:49 <jarhar> dbaron: its sort of like some of that is implemented in chromium and some of it is not
15:19:57 <jarhar> dbaron: theres a large proposal that is a third or half implemented
15:20:00 <gregwhitworth> q+
15:20:09 <jarhar> dbaron: so its not like there is a complete implementation of whats in that proposal that exists
15:20:18 <jarhar> dbaron: i agree that it feels like it needs a champion to move it along
15:20:43 <jarhar> dbaron: at some point i had talked to mason about whether thats something i should work on, and the answer was thats a good thing to do after these other things, but the other things are happening so i dont want to commit to it at this point
15:20:57 <jarhar> dbaron: something else could be inserted before focusgroup
15:21:03 <jarhar> greg: wait companies change priorities?
15:21:21 <jarhar> dbaron: theres some possibility that i could work on it in the future but i dont want to commit to that. there could also be somebody else, but yeah we need a champion
15:21:25 <gregwhitworth> ack scotto
15:21:32 <jarhar> scotto: i agree with everything that was just said
15:21:45 <jarhar> scotto: i have reviewed the explainer a couple times and i have a bunch of open questions about how this is actually supposed to work
15:22:01 <jarhar> scotto: arguably makes a lot of sense, and from a keyboard user alone
15:22:12 <jarhar> scotto: when you get a screenreader involved i have no idea how this is supposed to work
15:22:17 <dbaron> s/keyboard/sighted keyboard/
15:22:24 <jarhar> scotto: elements that kick people out of focus mode now have focus mode and have unexpected behavior
15:22:30 <jarhar> scotto: theres been nothing discussed about that
15:22:49 <jarhar> scotto: i know that developers wnat this, but talking about users some of them hate it because it doesnt work as expected
15:22:56 <jarhar> scotto: tab key is being removed from patterns like groups of links
15:23:10 <jarhar> scotto: but if they get contained inside of a group where the expected behavior is taken away with no visual or programatic way
15:23:17 <jarhar> scotto: it changes expectations
15:23:32 <jarhar> scotto: this is something good that we should do, but there are open questions and it isnt ready for a PR yet
15:23:35 <gregwhitworth> ack gregwhitworth
15:23:53 <jarhar> greg: what you just said is a proposed resolution that i would put forward
15:24:07 <jarhar> greg: this explainer is not ready to be given a formal pr to be given to whatwg. it needs continued incubation in openui
15:24:18 <jarhar> greg: does anybody disagree with that?
15:24:29 <gregwhitworth> RESOLVED:  this explainer is not ready to be given a formal pr to be given to whatwg. it needs continued incubation in openui
15:24:49 <jarhar> greg: the second issue is: we all agree and scott brought up a bunch of questions, has never discusssed how this works with ATs
15:25:11 <jarhar> greg: i do feel it is important as eyeballs increase on this site, keeping it up to date as possible
15:25:44 <jarhar> greg: i recommend that we update the working model, in the short term we should have some terminology or some site strucutre put in parenthesis right now we have explainer, some terminology that lets people know its stale and update the actual document itself
15:25:51 <jarhar> greg: i can put that on my calendar to review the documents
15:26:08 <jarhar> greg: we all generally know it because we discuss this every week. are we discussing it? if not, then we can make the explainer stale
15:26:11 <jarhar> greg: what are folks thoughts?
15:26:39 <jarhar> greg: stale? outdated? needs champion?
15:26:47 <jarhar> argyle: lets have mr freeze there saying its on ice
15:26:55 <jarhar> greg: focusgroup, file fall under this
15:27:05 <jarhar> masonf: needs champion sounds good. they need someone pushing them forward
15:27:13 <jarhar> greg: anybody disagree with that?
15:28:15 <jarhar> greg: i will for right now do "needs champion"
15:28:26 <jarhar> greg: on the pages i will add a note and say what that means
15:28:36 <jarhar> greg: the group is supportive of the initiative, but nobodys pushing it forward
15:28:42 <jarhar> greg: what do they call this in the csswg
15:28:46 <jarhar> dbaron: working draft
15:29:07 <jarhar> dbaron: im being half sarcastic because working draft is for both active and inactive
15:29:15 <jarhar> greg: for some reason i thought we discussed this as being stale
15:29:21 <jarhar> una: isnt there editors draft?
15:29:24 <jarhar> dbaron: same problem as working draft
15:29:35 <jarhar> greg: i remember tab trying so hard to get editors draft to work the same as whatwg
15:29:46 <jarhar> greg: im gonna propose that we make "needs champion" next to the items that are stale
15:31:00 <jarhar> jarhar: needs champion is inviting people to come help
15:31:09 <jarhar> greg: im more in favor of stale or dormant
15:31:23 <jarhar> greg: needs champion if im a third party or random web dev that lands on that, im a little bit knowledgeable on this
15:31:24 <masonf> How about "stale / needs champion"
15:31:29 <jarhar> greg: i like dormant for example, or archived
15:31:47 <masonf> "dormant / needs champion"
15:31:59 <jarhar> greg: ill submit a pr for this i think were good, i think we agree that there needs to be a demarcation and we can do that async in a pr
15:32:32 <gregwhitworth> Topic: Exclusive Accordion
15:32:49 <gregwhitworth> github: https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/725
15:32:55 <gregwhitworth> q?
15:33:15 <jarhar> dbaron: we had a call with 5 people last week and im trying to remember the overlap with the 10 we have today
15:33:40 <jarhar> dbaron: last week i said that the idea behind exlucisve accordion was to try to do something that is smaller and simpler and at the same time to be able to move faster
15:33:55 <jarhar> dbaron: and thus sort of in the spirit of moving faster i was thinking about when is this ready to go and try to make a pr  against html
15:34:24 <jarhar> dbaron: i think that maybe one of the things that came out of last weeks discussion was maybe try to put up a pr even if i dont think its ready to be merged in a week or two
15:34:33 <jarhar> dbaron: it might be worth writing the pr because doing so will uncover some additional issues
15:34:46 <jarhar> dbaron: some of what i wanted to ask is what do the folks here think
15:34:48 <jarhar> q+
15:34:54 <jarhar> dbaron: what do you think needs to happen
15:34:57 <masonf> q+
15:35:18 <jarhar> greg: scott and i were on the call, chris and brian were on the call, everyone else were not here
15:35:20 <gregwhitworth> ack jarhar
15:35:28 <scotto> q+
15:35:41 <gregwhitworth> jarhar: my thoughts are, on one hand you'll get feedback; no question
15:35:55 <gregwhitworth> jarhar: it will be helpful but if they don't know enough about it already they may not look at it for a while
15:36:22 <gregwhitworth> jarhar: I just opened a PR and I only got one comment about comments and issues from popover to go down before reviewing the PR for anchor
15:36:24 <masonf> q?
15:36:32 <gregwhitworth> ack masonf
15:36:40 <jarhar> masonf: im sympathetic to what joey just said
15:36:47 <jarhar> masonf: the next step i think is an html pr
15:37:03 <jarhar> masonf: it has to happen eventually, it will get zero attention until it has a pr
15:37:08 <jarhar> masonf: i think yeah lets put up a spec pr
15:37:15 <gregwhitworth> ack scotto
15:37:39 <jarhar> scotto: i agree with the spec pr and per what was just mentioned, that would probably get reviewed since its not popover
15:37:44 <jarhar> scotto: they cant say well fix popover first
15:37:50 <jarhar> scotto: repeating points from last week
15:37:53 <gregwhitworth> minutes from last week that has Christ H. and Brian's comments: https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-openui-minutes.html
15:38:01 <jarhar> scotto: only concerns that i mentioned last week were related to some lingering issues with details summary in general
15:38:12 <jarhar> scotto: those should not necessarily be blockers for moving ahead with this
15:38:24 <jarhar> scotto: my concern was that new features added to details summary would increase their usage and thus further
15:38:35 <jarhar> scotto: promote or add potential issues for details summary
15:38:53 <jarhar> scotto: if someone is like i can use details summary now for this, but didnt know about the issues with this elkement, but they are separate concerns
15:39:00 <jarhar> scotto: i see that david is already working on fixing those
15:39:08 <jarhar> scotto: if we could work on them separately that would be great
15:39:20 <jarhar> greg: chris and brian echod what everyone has said so far today
15:39:38 <jarhar> greg: brian recommends opening a PR because when authoring the spec you find issues
15:39:48 <jarhar> greg: im hearing yes, please go open a PR
15:39:55 <jarhar> greg: or at least write the spec
15:40:04 <jarhar> greg: do you need a concrete resolution?
15:40:08 <jarhar> dbaron: i dont think so
15:40:14 <jarhar> dbaron: a sense of the room is sufficient
15:40:24 <jarhar> greg: is there anything else you wanted to get?
15:40:26 <jarhar> dbaron: this is good
15:41:01 <gregwhitworth> Zakim, end meeting
15:41:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been masonf, Brecht_DR
15:41:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:41:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-openui-minutes.html Zakim
15:41:11 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, gregwhitworth; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:41:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #openui
15:41:49 <gregwhitworth> dbaron do you know how to add attendees and then redraft minutes?
15:42:30 <dbaron> Present+
15:42:32 <dbaron> Present+ gregwhitworth
15:42:39 <dbaron> Present+ jarhar
15:42:48 <dbaron> Present+ xiaochengh
15:42:51 <dbaron> Present+ una
15:43:00 <dbaron> Present+ scotto
15:43:14 <dbaron> Present+ argyle
15:43:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-openui-minutes.html dbaron
15:44:03 <dbaron> Regrets: hdv, bkardell
15:44:11 <dbaron> Meeting: Open UI CG Teleconference
15:44:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-openui-minutes.html dbaron
15:47:25 <dbaron> i/jarhar: my thoughts are/ScribeNick: gregwhitworth
15:47:37 <dbaron> i/masonf: im sympathetic to what/ScribeNick: jarhar
15:47:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/01-openui-minutes.html dbaron
16:59:22 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #openui