Meeting minutes
Review agenda and meeting dates
<Matt_King> View agenda at https://
<Matt_King> No meeting on July 4 or July 18
<Matt_King> Next meeting on July 11
Status of Site Updates
Matt_King: On June 20, Shawn published 7 changes to production
Matt_King: w3c/
Matt_King: Somehow, the link checker passed on the pull request but that it was not working in production
howard-e: I saw that. I was wondering if it was one of the links that is redirected by the WAI team. dmontalvo might be able to speak to that
dmontalvo: It wasn't a redirect as far as I know
Matt_King: I wonder if this was a server hiccup
dmontalvo: It could be; I don't have any other theories at the moment
Matt_King: We have a few things queued up for the next publication (they are three things listed in the agenda for today's meeting). We may publish them during the week of July 10
Pull request reviews
PR2729: Feed Example: Convert images to inline SVG by frozenzia
github: w3c/
Matt_King: We need visual review. I've partially tested with a screen reader using two browsers, but we should probably have additional verification from an accessibility standpoint (mostly the contrast). We also need someone to look at the code
dmontalvo: I can double-check this with a screen reader in Safari
Siri: if this can wait until the week of July 10, then I can review visually
Andrea_Cardona: I can review the code
Matt_King: Great. You're all assigned. Thank you!
jamesn: Heads up: I think the high-contrast is not right
PR 2723: Select-only Combobox Example: Fix scroll event listener bug by ariellalgilmore
github: w3c/
arigilmore: The fixes I've tried are causing either a keyboard issue or a mouse issue, so we've converted it back to draft for now
arigilmore: We'll take another try, but we might reach out to the team to see if anyone has other suggestions
PR2736: Add AT Support tables for modal dialog, 1 slider, and navigation menu button by mcking65
github: w3c/
Matt_King: There isn't much to review here. These three new support tables should look just like the others
Matt_King: The only difference is that I put these new ones higher on their pages
Matt_King: I think I'll just have Jemma look at this
PR2737: Reposition AT support tables higher on the page by mcking65
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I don't think this should cause any problems, but I'm wondering if anyone here has an objection to changing the order of sections on the page
[no comments]
Matt_King: I'll leave this as an editor's thing and see if Jemma has any feedback on it
PR2388: Related Documents links - Insufficient contrast ratio by jnurthen
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This is somewhat old. I wonder if anything has changed in a way that has made this unnecessary
Matt_King: Given that it's a one-line change, it might be easier to re-create the pull request rather than rebase the existing one
jamesn: The tab on the page looks to be the same color, and I don't see why one would fail and the other would not
Matt_King: Is this unique to the "Landmarks" page?
jamesn: Yes
Matt_King: I want to re-do these pages because they're hard to maintain in their current form
Matt_King: Since this is a minor issue, we may want to just let it be until we are able to take on the larger issue
jamesn: On the other hand, this is super simple, so we could fix it without much effort
Matt_King: That's true; it could be several months before we can improve the pages. If someone wants to land a quick fix now, that would also be good
jamesn: Okay, I'll do that, now
PR2733: Combobox Pattern: Simplify wording of description in "About This Pattern" section by mcking65
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This is an editorial change; I tried to simplify some wording based on feedback we received
Matt_King: The changes are all in the first two paragraphs for the Combobox pattern
<Matt_King> paragraph 1 reads: A combobox is an input widget that has an associated popup. The popup enables users to choose a value for the input from a collection. The popup may be a
<Matt_King> listbox, grid, tree, or dialog.
Matt_King: If no one sees any typos, then I'd appreciate an approval on the pull request so that we can move forward
Matt_King: The other change was spreading the text into two paragraphs
PR2725: Fix aria-level in treegrid example 1 by tryggvigy
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I believe the person who submitted this is fixing an issue that doesn't exist, and I responded as much in a comment
Matt_King: I wonder if there is something about the visual design of the tree grid that led the author to suspect that there are three levels
howard-e: the indentation does seem visually ambiguous to me
jugglinmike: The first level of children are almost vertically aligned with their parent. The offset for that specific level is minimal
Andrea_Cardona: Agreed
arigilmore: I think this needs more indention for the second level (that is, the first level of children)
jugglinmike: It might also be good to add a second "thread", since the example currently only has a single top-level item, making it difficult to recognize
Running tests on macOS
Andrea_Cardona: Running this on my end, I can see a number of files checked and a timeout reported by Ava. It tells me that 57 hooks failed
Matt_King: There are exactly 57 examples, so that's all of them
Andrea_Cardona: I believe the errors I'm observing are different than what the reporter has shared
github: w3c/
Matt_King: Paul was following the instructions for new contributors and ran into this problem right here. It's quite distracting, and I'm very concerned that we have instructions for new contributors that are leading them astray
Matt_King: We designed the regression tests to be able to run them locally, and I think they SHOULD be run locally, but if this is going to take a long time to address, I wonder if we should change the recommendation to rely on the CI system to run the regression tests
Andrea_Cardona: Yeah, arigilmore and I have relied on the CI system in that way in the past
Andrea_Cardona: It's somewhat slow, though!
jugglinmike: It can also be intimidating for new contributors to make their first pull request. It would be intimidating to have to wait for this automated feedback until *after* you've shared your work publicly
howard-e: They run reliably for me when I use Node.js 16 instead of Node.js 18. I'd be reluctant to pin to an old release of Node.js, though