17:57:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
17:57:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-aria-apg-irc
17:57:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:58:00 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
17:58:09 <Matt_King> present+
17:58:23 <Matt_King> CHAIR: Jemma
17:59:30 <jongund> present+ jongund
18:00:25 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg
18:00:28 <arigilmore> arigilmore has joined #aria-apg
18:02:08 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
18:02:13 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria-apg
18:02:16 <arigilmore> present+
18:02:18 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
18:02:23 <Jem> present+
18:02:33 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force Weekly Teleconference
18:02:38 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg
18:03:24 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/April-2%2C-2024-Agenda
18:03:33 <jugglinmike> Topic: Setup and Review Agenda
18:03:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I won't be available next week
18:03:56 <jugglinmike> Jem: Then let's take a spring break
18:04:11 <jugglinmike> Jem: The next meeting will be on Tuesday, April 16
18:04:43 <jugglinmike> Topic: Publication status
18:04:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: None of these 5 pull requests are merged, yet, but I want to get them merged
18:05:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Two of them appear later in the agenda, so we'll talk about those in due time
18:05:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For the pull request for combobox, we're still waiting for someone to test it on mobile
18:06:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Siri is currently assigned to that, but if the testing doesn't happen this week, then it won't go out
18:06:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That needs to be tested specifically by someone who is not using a screen reader
18:06:39 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-apg
18:06:44 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2889
18:06:47 <howard-e> present+
18:07:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're looking for a test on Android or iOS to make sure that when you tab, the label still works as expected
18:07:28 <jugglinmike> arigilmore: I can take a look
18:07:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks!
18:07:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then there's the radio group pull request from jongund, removing the "Enter" key
18:08:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think jongund's three-line change to the JavaScript is really all there is (there is no reference to the "Enter" key in APG)
18:08:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've reviewed the code, and I think it's so minor that my review is sufficient to merge. Any objections?
18:08:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, I will merge it
18:09:13 <jugglinmike> Jem: I will take a look at the fourth item in the list--the pull request about the landmark example page
18:09:26 <jugglinmike> Topic: Infra update
18:09:37 <jugglinmike> s/Infra update/Infra updates/
18:10:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I would like two people to review the changes to skipTo
18:10:24 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2975
18:10:58 <jugglinmike> jongund: I'm the only one working on skipTo right now. The code is kind of complicated (Alt+0 wasn't working for a user of a French keyboard)
18:11:58 <jugglinmike> jongund: My patch removes the ability for users to change the keyboard shortcut
18:17:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's still an open investigation within Meta what we really want the approach to be with global shortcut keys like this
18:17:38 <jugglinmike> jongund: We could remove the shortcut key altogether
18:18:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't really like that solution; the only way I ever use "skipTo" is by using a shortcut key
18:19:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We could land this as-is, and jongund could take a new issue in skipTo to address this
18:20:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But I'm wondering if someone could look at the skipTo change
18:20:11 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I can review it
18:21:03 <jugglinmike> jongund: I will create an issue in the skipTo project repository for disabling the shortcut when focus is on an input, and I'll reference that new issue in this existing one in APG
18:21:27 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Infrastructure: Fix syntax highlighting bug on examples by evmiguel · Pull Request #2939 · w3c/aria-practices
18:21:35 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2939
18:21:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think this needs a visual review
18:21:59 <jugglinmike> Jem: I will do it
18:22:14 <jugglinmike> Subtopic: Approach to keeping date correct on coverage report
18:22:36 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2976
18:23:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: My understanding is that, if we were to take this approach and merge this, then every time we merge a pull request, there's going to be a commit for merging the pull request and there's going to be a subsequent commit for updating the date on the quality report
18:23:58 <jugglinmike> howard-e: That's correct
18:24:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Could we change the script that generates the report so that the date that is in the report itself doesn't change?
18:25:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For example, lets say we took jongund's "radio" pull request here. Lets say it was March 26, so his commit is March 26. The quality report runs on March 26, and it doesn't use the date that it runs--it uses the date of last changed file.
18:25:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That way, if he ran the coverage report on April 1, then it will still keep March 26, because it only considers the state of the code
18:26:30 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think why I ended up doing like this--it was based on the comment that the date should reflect the moment it was merged into the "main" branch
18:26:43 <Jem> "As a request of yesterday's APG meeting, this PR will capture any changes found in that coverage report's diff check and immediately push it to the main branch because the "last updated date" should reflect when the affecting PR is merged in."
18:27:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The only reason we want a date there is for us to be able to see that the report includes the latest changes in the repository
18:27:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if the date of the merge to "main" is that important
18:28:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've been trying to keep the state of the history of the "main" branch as clean as possible
18:28:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now, these commits are labeled "CHORE:", so we can filter them out. So maybe I shouldn't even care.
18:28:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But it seems like having the extra commits is just more to ignore
18:28:59 <jugglinmike> howard-e: If the date that it is merged into "main" truly doesn't matter, then I can walk back that second  "CHORE" commit. It wouldn't be a problem
18:29:33 <jugglinmike> howard-e: My other suggestion was making a transform on the "build" repo. So that none of this date manipulation would happen here
18:30:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we're working on pull requests that would cause changes to a report, we'll want to be able to look in the report itself and see that the report was updated
18:30:21 <jugglinmike> howard-e: The date would still show up in the preview, even if it was part of a transform in the "build" repository
18:30:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we would still have the "coverage and quality report" script and generation all done in the repository
18:31:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Because it's part of the content, I kind of like having it in the "content" repository, but I'm okay with either
18:31:54 <jugglinmike> Jem: So the last-update date would be when?
18:32:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It would match the date in the footer
18:32:42 <jugglinmike> s/in the footer/in the footer on example pages/
18:33:15 <jugglinmike> s/it would match/the "last update" date would match/
18:34:17 <jugglinmike> howard-e: If it's done from APG, the date would reflect the moment of the latest contribution. If it's done from the "build" repository, the date would reflect the moment of the merge
18:35:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: You're right. It's probably better to do this as a preview, that way, the two kinds of dates that we're exposing on the site would match
18:36:53 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/alert/examples/alert/
18:37:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Why does "alert" say it's been updated in the past two months?
18:38:01 <jugglinmike> howard-e: We updated "skipTo" across all the pages
18:38:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ah. This is why we need that other feature we discussed--to make that date link to the list of relevant commits. That way, folks could understand what the date actually described
18:38:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I have a design issue for this somewhere. It kind of got de-prioritized
18:39:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We don't have any complaints recently, but there is an issue related to this in the backlog
18:39:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the future, "skipTo" changes will not effect this date. That's a beautiful part of jongund's recent changes to skipTo--we'll never have to update the pages when "skipTo" changes
18:40:24 <jugglinmike> Topic: Support for experimental content
18:40:38 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2977
18:41:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If you follow the preview link, then go to the "index" page and scroll down so you have the very last heading on the page in view
18:41:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's called "experimental examples"
18:41:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The first pattern we want to get into APG is called "ARIA Actions"
18:42:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We want people to be able to get to ARIA Actions--the people who are working on this, e.g. ARIA-AT Testers
18:42:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Those people will be able to pull up this example which is "not part of the official APG"
18:43:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are several aspects to the design of this page
18:43:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Every experimental example's title has the word "Experimental" in brackets
18:43:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The "read this first" content is expanded by default (instead of being collapsed by default)
18:44:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And the "About this example" section instead read "About this experimental example"
18:44:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: all of these things would change when the example stops being experimental
18:44:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But we won't do this in the pattern itself. It's kind of hidden. Not totally hidden, but kind of
18:45:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: My question for the group: Is this design sufficient to make sure people understand that this is experimental?
18:45:45 <jugglinmike> Jem: This is great. I remember talking about this at TPAC. There, I mentioned that I wanted to see a reference to ARIA to help explain why we are experimenting here in APG
18:45:58 <jugglinmike> Jem: I think we're missing that context at the moment
18:46:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We would address that in the "About this example" section by adding a link to the draft
18:46:51 <jugglinmike> Jem: I have some thoughts about the wording of the description
18:47:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm still working on the wording; I'm mostly just looking for feedback to the high-level changes (The title, the heading, etc.)
18:48:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: At the point in time that it becomes evergreen in ARIA, we would have a pull request that removes the word "experimental" everywhere it shows up, we would remove the metadata that causes it to be listed separately in the index
18:48:54 <jugglinmike> Jem: I like that. I like that we'll be able to prepare for the transition to take place when the time is right
18:49:29 <jugglinmike> present+ Bryan_Garaventa
18:49:49 <jugglinmike> jongund: I think it looks good. It seems pretty clear that it's experimental. The word is everywhere
18:50:12 <jugglinmike> jongund: I agree with Jem's feedback to highlight the relationship to the draft spec
18:52:46 <jugglinmike> Bryan_Garaventa: Does it explain what the term "experimental" means?
18:52:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: yes
18:53:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm going to take this to the next level by updating some of the content. Is that going to be a problem for Alex?
18:53:17 <jugglinmike> howard-e: That should be fine
18:53:37 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Should this be excluded from updating the "coverage and quality" report?
18:54:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I actually think that no, it should not be excluded, for two reasons. I think it would be good to be able to see if the experimental pages cause any quality problems.
18:54:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Second, even if people outside of the APG Task Force look at the report, I think the title of these pages will make it clear to them that these are experimental.
18:55:42 <jugglinmike> Topic: Improving guidance for setting focus in multi-select listbox
18:55:46 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:55:54 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2958
18:55:55 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:56:22 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:57:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm having a little bit of difficulty following the text in the issue
18:58:46 <jugglinmike> Jem: This is about focus management
18:58:58 <jugglinmike> Jem: I'm reviewing the visual recording
19:02:30 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg
19:03:11 <jugglinmike4> jugglinmike4 has joined #aria-apg
19:03:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think it would be helpful if the reporter added explicit steps to reproduce, including each of their interactions with the keyboard
19:04:07 <jugglinmike> Jem: Yes. We can review this asynchronously and discuss it again next week
19:04:15 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
19:04:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Matt_King, jongund, jugglinmike, arigilmore, Jem, howard-e, Bryan_Garaventa
19:04:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
19:04:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
19:04:26 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
19:04:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg
19:04:28 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
19:04:28 <RRSAgent> I see no action items