Meeting minutes
Should we change the meeting day/time to be more inclusive
<gregwhitworth> github: openui/
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
masonf: i would love to propose that we move it to 9am pacific time
greg: scott i think you recommended monday at 9am
masonf: i got two thumbs up on that
masonf: mondays tend to be lower meeting days
greg: i would love to move it to monday regardless of time
greg: would prefer 9
greg: would love for those on east coast or europe to weigh in
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
una: sometimes gets moved though
masonf: could do 8:30
masonf: also slightly better for the europeans as well
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
dbaron: i do often eat during the css call actually
brecht: im from belgium and now its about 5pm here
brecht: theres a bit of a situation, most people work til 5pm, i had the chance to stay in the office for this
brecht: 5:30 for me would be a bit harder, because then im between zones
brecht: 6pm or 7pm would be fine for me
brecht: just to give an idea, this might be a trickier timezone
brecht: hidde is also from holland, about the same timezone
greg: yours is dealing with commute?
brecht: yeah
masonf: does that apply to hidde?
brecht: i think it does, im not completely sure
brecht: mondays i work from home so that wouldnt matter to me
brecht: 6pm or 7pm would be better than 5:30 because then were in between zones
greg: would you prefer 6 or 7?
brecht: doesnt really matter that much
greg: so youre recommending 9am or 10am
greg: so you would prefer 11am pst
masonf: not all the people are on this call
masonf: i could put a vote for 6 different times
greg: do the emoji thing
una: also do the 11am monday
dbaron: 11am monday would be 8pm for brecht
brecht: still would be quite ok, 8pm could also work
brecht: it used to be 8pm for me a while back, but it was 2am for those in asian countries
masonf: ill have an "other" category in case we didn't hit one that somebody wants
Focusgroup move to WHATWG
<gregwhitworth> github: openui/
greg: luke opened this, focusgroup was first proposed by microsoft to this group
greg: it laid dormant pretty quickly once it moved over to this group
greg: microsoft has had a lot of reshuffling since
greg: luke is saying that if we made a PR over to whatwg it would move faster because implementors are there
greg: similar to popover, recognizing being relatively newer to the group that that did start here, then we landed it in whatwg
greg: he is proposing moving focusgroup, he is kind of saying a PR, over to whatwg
greg: it raises a question, it needs a champion. its a ui concept of grouping, i would prefer it to stay here
greg: what should we be doing with things that become stale
greg: somebody started it, we havent put a lot of time into it
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
masonf: on focusgroup i thought, travis at microsoft was working on it, i thought they had a spec pr
masonf: it was pretty far along, implemented with origin trials
masonf: i dont know if we should locate a spec pr
masonf: that was on my list of things to try to do this year
masonf: ill leave your more general question for after
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
una: theres so many asterisks with ax
una: there could be more discussions for edge cases
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
una: unless this is going to be luke
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
una: as far as marking things as stale, we could have a github bot that says things are going to become stale
greg: we already have this, its 6 months
greg: its for issues solely, not on the actual site
una: there should be some kind of mechanism to say whether its in active development or not
greg: lets set that one aside, thats issue 2
dbaron: the current state of focusgroup in chromium is that theres an explainer that has quite a lot of stuff in it
dbaron: its sort of like some of that is implemented in chromium and some of it is not
dbaron: theres a large proposal that is a third or half implemented
dbaron: so its not like there is a complete implementation of whats in that proposal that exists
dbaron: i agree that it feels like it needs a champion to move it along
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
dbaron: something else could be inserted before focusgroup
greg: wait companies change priorities?
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
scotto: i agree with everything that was just said
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
scotto: arguably makes a lot of sense, and from a sighted keyboard user alone
scotto: when you get a screenreader involved i have no idea how this is supposed to work
scotto: elements that kick people out of focus mode now have focus mode and have unexpected behavior
scotto: theres been nothing discussed about that
scotto: i know that developers wnat this, but talking about users some of them hate it because it doesnt work as expected
scotto: tab key is being removed from patterns like groups of links
scotto: but if they get contained inside of a group where the expected behavior is taken away with no visual or programatic way
scotto: it changes expectations
scotto: this is something good that we should do, but there are open questions and it isnt ready for a PR yet
greg: what you just said is a proposed resolution that i would put forward
greg: this explainer is not ready to be given a formal pr to be given to whatwg. it needs continued incubation in openui
greg: does anybody disagree with that?
RESOLUTION: this explainer is not ready to be given a formal pr to be given to whatwg. it needs continued incubation in openui
greg: the second issue is: we all agree and scott brought up a bunch of questions, has never discusssed how this works with ATs
greg: i do feel it is important as eyeballs increase on this site, keeping it up to date as possible
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
greg: i can put that on my calendar to review the documents
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
greg: what are folks thoughts?
greg: stale? outdated? needs champion?
argyle: lets have mr freeze there saying its on ice
greg: focusgroup, file fall under this
masonf: needs champion sounds good. they need someone pushing them forward
greg: anybody disagree with that?
greg: i will for right now do "needs champion"
greg: on the pages i will add a note and say what that means
greg: the group is supportive of the initiative, but nobodys pushing it forward
greg: what do they call this in the csswg
dbaron: working draft
dbaron: im being half sarcastic because working draft is for both active and inactive
greg: for some reason i thought we discussed this as being stale
una: isnt there editors draft?
dbaron: same problem as working draft
greg: i remember tab trying so hard to get editors draft to work the same as whatwg
greg: im gonna propose that we make "needs champion" next to the items that are stale
jarhar: needs champion is inviting people to come help
greg: im more in favor of stale or dormant
greg: needs champion if im a third party or random web dev that lands on that, im a little bit knowledgeable on this
<masonf> How about "stale / needs champion"
greg: i like dormant for example, or archived
<masonf> "dormant / needs champion"
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
Exclusive Accordion
<gregwhitworth> github: openui/
dbaron: we had a call with 5 people last week and im trying to remember the overlap with the 10 we have today
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
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
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
dbaron: it might be worth writing the pr because doing so will uncover some additional issues
dbaron: some of what i wanted to ask is what do the folks here think
dbaron: what do you think needs to happen
greg: scott and i were on the call, chris and brian were on the call, everyone else were not here
jarhar: my thoughts are, on one hand you'll get feedback; no question
jarhar: it will be helpful but if they don't know enough about it already they may not look at it for a while
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
masonf: im sympathetic to what joey just said
masonf: the next step i think is an html pr
masonf: it has to happen eventually, it will get zero attention until it has a pr
masonf: i think yeah lets put up a spec pr
scotto: i agree with the spec pr and per what was just mentioned, that would probably get reviewed since its not popover
scotto: they cant say well fix popover first
scotto: repeating points from last week
<gregwhitworth> minutes from last week that has Christ H. and Brian's comments: https://
scotto: only concerns that i mentioned last week were related to some lingering issues with details summary in general
scotto: those should not necessarily be blockers for moving ahead with this
scotto: my concern was that new features added to details summary would increase their usage and thus further
scotto: promote or add potential issues for details summary
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
scotto: i see that david is already working on fixing those
scotto: if we could work on them separately that would be great
greg: chris and brian echod what everyone has said so far today
greg: brian recommends opening a PR because when authoring the spec you find issues
greg: im hearing yes, please go open a PR
greg: or at least write the spec
greg: do you need a concrete resolution?
dbaron: i dont think so
dbaron: a sense of the room is sufficient
greg: is there anything else you wanted to get?
dbaron: this is good
<gregwhitworth> dbaron do you know how to add attendees and then redraft minutes?