IRC log of aria-apg on 2024-07-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:02:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
18:02:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/02-aria-apg-irc
18:02:47 [howard-e]
howard-e has joined #aria-apg
18:02:47 [howard-e]
present+
18:02:49 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #aria-apg
18:02:49 [Jem]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/02-aria-apg-minutes.html Jem
18:02:55 [jugglinmike]
rrsagent, make log public
18:03:02 [jugglinmike]
Zakim, start the meeting
18:03:02 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:03:04 [Zakim]
Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
18:03:59 [jugglinmike]
Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force Weekly Teleconference
18:04:05 [jugglinmike]
present+ jugglinmike
18:04:06 [Jem]
https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/July-2%2C-2024-Agenda
18:04:07 [jugglinmike]
scribe+ jugglinmike
18:04:28 [Jem]
present+
18:04:32 [jugglinmike]
present+ howard-e
18:04:36 [jugglinmike]
present+ Matt_King
18:05:00 [CurtBellew]
CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg
18:05:31 [jugglinmike]
present+ CurtBellew
18:06:37 [jugglinmike]
Topic: Setup and Review Agenda
18:06:42 [jugglinmike]
Jem: No meeting July 9
18:06:47 [jugglinmike]
Jem: Next meeting: July 16
18:06:52 [jugglinmike]
Jem: Any requests for change to agenda?
18:06:59 [Jem]
https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/milestone/32
18:06:59 [jugglinmike]
Jem: Hearing none, we'll move on as scheduled
18:07:09 [jugglinmike]
Topic: Publication planning
18:07:55 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Ari's pull request is missing from the milestone; we'll add it when we get there
18:08:03 [Jem]
https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/July-2%2C-2024-Agenda
18:08:09 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: first, PR 3024 - Coverage and Quality Report: Add reporting on use of forced-colors media query and currentcolor value by jongund
18:08:16 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: That's pending some action by me and then I can merge it
18:08:29 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: next, PR 3025 - Ratings Slider: Use buttontext instead of linktext system color in high contrast mode by jongund
18:08:51 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: We've requested review from Siri, but I don't think that's truly necessary, so I'll merge it
18:09:01 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: next, PR 2991 - Add Practice Page for Supporting High Contrast
18:09:26 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: This patch is a sort of public service announcement. We need people to read this new section and provide feedback
18:09:41 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: We'll discuss this more on the 16th when Jon has returned
18:10:08 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: In the mean time, if you have feedback, it would be helpful if you added it to the pull request
18:10:21 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: and finally, there's Feature: Search for patterns, toggle grid/list view by stalgiag · Pull Request #3043 · w3c/aria-practices
18:10:41 [jugglinmike]
Jem: I've added myself as a reviewer for pull request #2991
18:11:02 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Thanks! I'm sure we'll have to go through a few rounds of review with that one. It's a big change
18:11:08 [jugglinmike]
Topic: Change to HTML source section on example pages
18:11:24 [jugglinmike]
github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3041
18:11:42 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I would love to merge this very soon because it changes 59 pages, and I want to avoid conflicts with other pull requests
18:12:01 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I think we need some people to look at some of these pages and just look for possible anomalies
18:12:12 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Basically, right now, I think we need two reviewers in addition to myself
18:12:38 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: It's the same change on every page, but as we know, there are some variations in the example pages, e.g. the list box page and the button page
18:13:00 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: But we also want to pay attention to the more normal pages which only have one example per page
18:13:21 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: We also want to be sure that it works when you zoom in, and that it all looks acceptable on mobile
18:13:37 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: I can help out
18:13:43 [jugglinmike]
Jem: Me, too
18:14:32 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Okay, could we maybe split the pages alphabetically? Jem, you could look at pages belonging the first half of the alphabet, and CurtBellew, you would look at pages in the second half...?
18:14:52 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: To be clear, you wouldn't have to look at every single page assigned to you; just use that to inform your sampling
18:14:59 [jugglinmike]
s/use that/use that constraint/
18:19:23 [jugglinmike]
Jem: I can take a look by the end of this week
18:19:27 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: Same for me
18:20:05 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Okay. I'm going to look at the coverage to make sure we didn't skip any examples
18:20:43 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Don't worry about the "Feed" example--we don't have an "Open in CodePen" button there due to a technical shortcoming
18:21:13 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: This was a cool change. It was a tiny issue that someone raised, and I'm happy we made this decision
18:21:26 [jugglinmike]
Topic: Three or more levels in disclosure nav menus
18:21:35 [jugglinmike]
github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3045
18:22:22 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Last week, we recognized that there's a difference in content between the "navigation menu bar" and the "disclosure menu bar"
18:22:35 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: The former has three levels, but the latter does not
18:24:41 [jugglinmike]
Jem: So the idea was that we should provide a consistent example, like a two-level menu for both patterns
18:24:50 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Well, the reporter is just asking how it would be done
18:25:15 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: Doesn't it have more than two levels?
18:26:03 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: If you compare the two... I don't see "history" in the "disclosure menu bar"
18:27:17 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: There is not a page called "Facts" in one, but there is such a page in the other
18:27:44 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: In the disclosure menu bar, I assume that the way it would work is that you would replace the links with a button that expands and shows the ones below it
18:28:24 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: The thing that would be strange from a screen reader user's point of view, at least with a disclosure, they would not expect "campus tours" (for example) to disappear
18:28:41 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Visually, do you still see the parent when you expand the child?
18:28:48 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: Yes, it sits next to it
18:29:19 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Okay, I think we could do the same. That seems like a good thing to demonstrate in this example
18:29:45 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I don't know why it was originally built any other way. Maybe we should ask Sarah, the original author
18:30:26 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I think the answer here is to replace the "Facts" link with another disclosure and it would behave he same way as the flyout in the "navigation menu bar" does
18:31:16 [jugglinmike]
Jem: If we build another layer of menu, there's going to be another nested UL and LI element with an A link
18:31:19 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Correct
18:31:37 [jugglinmike]
Jem: Seems to be simple
18:32:08 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: It's too bad that we're working on the test plan in ARIA-AT right now. If we update this, we'll have to re-do all the ARIA-AT work.
18:32:26 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: It'd be really interesting to see if we could do this in the other "navigation disclosure" menu, instead
18:32:41 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Because we have two of them--one that has top-level links, and one that does not have top-level links
18:33:48 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: If we instead update the other one--the one with top-level links--then it would avoid disrupting the ARIA-AT work. That also seems better for APG, since the one with top-level links is the more complicated one
18:34:17 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: This would allow us to preserve the simplicity of the one without top-level links
18:34:50 [jugglinmike]
Jem: This would be a good warm-up for Adam, the new contributor who will be joining us soon
18:35:12 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I'm going to add a link to the new example page that we want to modify
18:37:59 [jugglinmike]
Topic: Should the current location on a breadcrumb trail be an anchor element?
18:41:04 [jugglinmike]
github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3047
18:42:48 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I remember discussing this concern when we made this example
18:43:00 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: There have been a variety of opinions, and I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer
18:43:20 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: It kind of feels as though the answer may be more of a design decision that is based on the structure of the curent site
18:43:29 [jugglinmike]
s/curent/current/
18:43:42 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I've seen some that don't include the current page at all
18:44:18 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: WCAG has a document that may be relevant, "G65: Providing a breadcrumb trail"
18:44:20 [Jem]
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G65.html
18:45:09 [jugglinmike]
Jem: 2.4.8 seems relevant
18:45:22 [jugglinmike]
Jem: My vote is to not add the anchor tag. What do other folks?
18:45:35 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: I'd like to put aria-current on it
18:45:54 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I like that, too, though aria-current works better on a link. aria-current on a word doesn't have any meaning to it
18:48:14 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: The second example on WCAG includes the current page as a link, but it doesn't say *not* to do that
18:48:31 [jugglinmike]
present+ Mark_McCarthy
18:48:57 [jugglinmike]
Mark_McCarthy: there isn't anything that says *not* to use links. It seems like a design decision for authors
18:49:14 [jugglinmike]
s/for authors/that authors are expected to make/
18:49:37 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: So perhaps APG doesn't need to make a recommendation about this
18:50:53 [jugglinmike]
howard-e: For what it's worth, at the bottom of the WCAG page, there's a note that reads "failing this test procedure does not necessarily mean that the success criterion has not been satisfied in some other way, only that this technique has not been successfully implemented and can not be used to claim conformance."
18:50:58 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: That's an interesting wording
18:52:08 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: That statement applies to the entire list which precedes it
18:54:45 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Does the Task Force actually agree that WCAG should be so prescriptive about bread crumbs? Maybe we should raise an issue here...
18:55:45 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: The first words are a little weird: "If this is a sufficient technique for a success criterion"
18:55:58 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I don't know what that condition means
18:56:24 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Apparently, they must include insufficient techniques
18:57:13 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: It's essentially saying, "if you fail these checks, this technique has not been successfully implemented"
18:57:24 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: "...and cannot be used to claim conformance"
18:57:51 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: That would mean that if someone built breadcrumbs like the APG's, their implementation would be invalid
18:58:07 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: I do think that statement on the WCAG is authoritative
18:58:48 [Jem]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/general/G65
18:59:09 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: With that understanding, do we think that the APG bread crumb that this Task Force has previously reviewed and approved--do we think that decision needs to be revisited based on this reading of WCAG?
19:00:03 [jugglinmike]
Jem: They have versions of this technique in 2.0 and 2.2
19:00:37 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: For my part, I don't think we should revisit the validity of the APG bread crumb example. If people implement bread crumbs the way they are implemented in APG, they should be considered valid by WCAG
19:00:47 [jugglinmike]
Jem: I'm fine with that
19:01:14 [jugglinmike]
Mark_McCarthy: I agree that we don't need to re-assess. I think the current implementation is fine
19:01:26 [jugglinmike]
CurtBellew: I concur. In fact, I prefer the APG implementation
19:02:01 [jugglinmike]
Matt_King: Okay, then I may use this Task Force's agreement in an issue raised with WCAG
19:02:10 [Jem]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/new
19:02:25 [Jem]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/general/G65#tests
19:03:05 [jugglinmike]
Zakim, end the meeting
19:03:05 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been howard-e, jugglinmike, Jem, Matt_King, CurtBellew, Mark_McCarthy
19:03:07 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
19:03:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/02-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
19:03:15 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
19:03:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #aria-apg
19:03:16 [jugglinmike]
RRSAgent, leave
19:03:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items