Meeting minutes
<Jem> https://
Setup and Review Agenda
Jem: We'll have meeting next week and one more on the 19th, the following two will be cancelled for the holidays
Status of Site Updates
Jem: Next publication: December 19, 2023. Branch cut date: December 18, 2023
Jem: We have to pull requests ready for the next publication. You can find links in the meeting agenda
Matt_King: A GitHub "check" did not run for one of those, and I don't know why. I'm also concerned that it might represent a larger problem which affects other pull requests
howard-e: I'll take a look
Matt_King: Shawn said there was no problem publishing on the 19th as long as there are only content changes--nothing complicated
Matt_King: We *do* have one item further on in the agenda related to the structure of the repository, and that seems like it may be too complicated
<Jem> w3c/
PR 2839 - set aria-expanded false when menus are closed
Matt_King: Previously, we had a problem with the preview build
Matt_King: I verified the toolbar change locally
Matt_King: But last night, it still wasn't working in preview
howard-e: the issue is a token authorization problem
howard-e: Carmen at Bocoup is asking Shawn if it's possible to update this. Hopefully, we can get this fixed today, but it may have to wait until Monday
howard-e: There's also some concern about this strategy moving forward. It relies on long-lived tokens
howard-e: That's a conversation that needs to happen with WAI. I think Bocoup can lead that conversation.
Andrea_Cardona: There's a regression test failing, and I was unsuccessful in my attempts to fix it
<Jem> w3c/
jongund_: helpfully offered to take a look
jongund_: I added some suggestions this morning
Andrea_Cardona: Great! I'll take a look after this meeting
Matt_King: All the editorial review is done on this one
Matt_King: I'm responsible for the functional review. I'll wait for the preview build problem to be fixed
Matt_King: Code review is assigned to nobody. Oh!
jongund_: I can perform the code review
Matt_King: Thank you!
Matt_King: Looks like test review is assigned to Jem
Matt_King: there are no other reviews because there are no visual changes
Matt_King: This could probably land this week. Awesome!
jongund_: I'll wait for Andrea_Cardona to make her changes before performing the code review
Issue 2501 - Rating slider redesign
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I'm signed up for editorial review here, but I haven't done that, yet
Matt_King: Looks like Curt has done the functional review, and Ariella_Gilmore has done the visual design review
Ariella_Gilmore: I'll get to the accessibility review this week
Matt_King: code review is to be done by Andrea_Cardona
Finish repo restructure
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This is another one of those changes where it's focused on the back-end. We don't want the site to regress at all
Matt_King: We want people to compare every page of the website in the preview to the corresponding page in production
<Jem> w3c/
Matt_King: That's over 100 pages, so we're going to have to split up the work
Matt_King: For more context: in the current architecture, almost all of the images are inserted via scripts during the build process
Matt_King: But the images are content, so we want to control them from the "content" repository. We don't want the build process to insert content
Matt_King: This build moves all of that content into the content repository (e.g. 31 SVG files). It changes every page that has at least one image--it adds the reference to the image as a relative link
Matt_King: Once this lands, we'll have full control over the content from the "content" repository
Matt_King: We've done this in phases and steps since the launch of the redesign last year. This is the final step in that long process
Matt_King: In the past when we've had to make large changes like this, we've divided up patterns alphabetically
Matt_King: It appears that the preview for this isn't working right now. Hopefully the preview will be fixed later today, so that if we assign reviewers during this meeting today, then those preview links will be available tomorrow
Matt_King: It might be a lot to ask to have this all reviewed by Monday, but I think the work will go pretty quickly
Matt_King: Here's what I have in mind for the reviewers we designate for this work: Go to the production site, load the page, then on the preview, go to that same page in another tab. If they look the same at first glance, then move on to the next page.
Matt_King: The goal is no differences. If there is a difference, we'd want to know about that and flag it in the pull request
Matt_King: If we can get this done by Monday, then we could get it deployed this year. Otherwise, we'll have to wait until next year because this change is too complicated for us to give to Shawn by the only other publication date this year (December 19)
howard-e: Fixing the preview will require assistance from W3C, but it's not clear who is able to help and if they are available today
Matt_King: I don't think we need to review the "About" page. Between the "patterns" pages and the "practices" pages, I think there are about 80 pages to review in total
Matt_King: jongund_ can you look at the "patterns" page and then the "patterns" page up through just before "radio group"?
jongund_: Sure
Ariella_Gilmore: I can take "radio" through "window splitter"
Jem: I can review the "practices" pages
Matt_King: Then we would have everything covered amongst the three of you
Matt_King: I don't think there are any images on the index page
Jem: And there are no images on the "about" page, either
Matt_King: Okay, then I think between jongund_, Ariella_Gilmore, and Jem, I think that covers it!
Issue 2870: HTML labeling guidance
Matt_King: I was really surprised that there were problems with labeling via encapsulation
Matt_King: I didn't know that labeling via the "for" attribute was preferred
Matt_King: Some of the references are a few years old, but I would imagine this recommendation is still relevant
Matt_King: Does anyone object to changing our guidance?
jongund_: What about radio buttons and checkboxes? Those are the ones that people are naturally going to want to encapsulate
Matt_King: Well, checkbox is the example that's provided
<Jem> w3c/
Matt_King: Some of our examples don't follow this guidance, but that allows us to perform interoperability testing, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend changes those
Matt_King: I'm shocked because this approach to labeling (wrapping the input and the text with the "label" element) has been around for over a decade
Matt_King: But the reporter is saying that Dragon doesn't recognize the input in that case
CoryJoseph: We've seen this in CVS
CoryJoseph: Specifically for voice control users on our sites
Matt_King: I started drafting an alternative pull request to the one that's been offered because the one that's been offered introduces new words and concepts. I don't know if those are necessary
Matt_King: I would generally prefer to communicate the preference and emphasize it with the sequence that we offer alternatives
Matt_King: Hearing no objection to that, I'll have my alternate pull request ready for public review soon
Tab behavior in disclosure navigation menu
github: w3c/
Matt_King: The reporter thinks that when you tab out of a disclosure menu, it should close
Matt_King: This is not a menu, so I'm not sure I agree. Then again, we've made exceptions in other patterns, so I wonder if folks here agree
CoryJoseph: This is a tricky problem because we have to consider whether it needs to cover the misuse of the pattern
Matt_King: Does anyone agree with the reporter?
jongund: I don't like an exception for the patterns, per se, but there's so much confusion over the patterns already...
Matt_King: But if we go along with this suggestion, doesn't that exception increase the confusion?
Matt_King: An exception like this reduces the differentiation with the "menu", and I wonder if the recommendation to authors for this situation should be to "use the menu pattern, instead"
CoryJoseph: I'm on the fence about this
<Jem> Caution!
<Jem> Before considering use of the Menubar Pattern for site navigation, it is important to understand:
<Jem> The menubar pattern requires complex functionality that is unnecessary for typical site navigation that is styled to look like a menubar with expandable sections or fly outs.
<Jem> A pattern more suited for typical site navigation with expandable groups of links is the Disclosure Pattern. For an example, see Example Disclosure Navigation Menu.
Matt_King: The "menu bar" pattern page and the "disclosure" pattern page already compliment each other by referencing each other and explaining how to choose between them
<Jem> caution about navigation menubar
Matt_King: CoryJoseph if you want to review those two pages, I think your perspective as a new attendee to this meeting would be particularly helpful