18:04:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
18:04:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-aria-apg-irc
18:04:07 <Adam_Page> present+
18:04:07 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
18:04:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:04:08 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
18:04:11 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
18:04:16 <jugglinmike> present+ howard-e
18:04:21 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
18:04:28 <jugglinmike> present+ Adam_Page
18:04:33 <jugglinmike> present+ Jem
18:04:39 <jugglinmike> present+ Lola
18:05:08 <jugglinmike> Topic: Setup and Review Agenda
18:05:23 <jugglinmike> Jem: Next meeting is October 8 (we're going to be in TPAC next week and miss that meeting)
18:06:03 <jugglinmike> Jem: Has a conflict on October 1, so we'll cancel that one, too
18:06:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any requests for change to agenda?
18:06:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll stick with the agenda as planned
18:06:58 <jugglinmike> Topic: Publication planning
18:07:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks to Adam_Page for completing the aria-actions page. That's our first experimental page
18:07:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're demonstrating an ARIA feature to the world that isn't even in ARIA, yet. We've clearly told the world that it isn't available in ARIA, of course. It's really only available via a sort of "back door"
18:08:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That depends on the new infrastructure that howard-e and Stalgia built earlier this year
18:08:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Four other things made it in to the milestone that we published last Thursday
18:08:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: ...but what are we going to do, next?
18:09:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm proposing October 29 as our next target for publication. That gives us a little over a month to put things together
18:09:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any thoughts on that? Is it a no-go for anyone here?
18:10:06 <jugglinmike> howard-e: October 29 works for me
18:10:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I hope we can land Jon's high-contrast pull request by then
18:11:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's an issue from last week that Adam_Page agreed to work on--the one related to tooltip and mouse behavior
18:11:32 <jugglinmike> Adam_Page: Absolutely. I consulted with Sarah on that to confirm my instincts, so I'm going to write a patch based on that understanding
18:11:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Excellent
18:12:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are some really old pull requests that are related to ARIA 1.3 that I can refactor and bring in to "striking distance" for this publication
18:12:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll look into that after TPAC
18:12:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: At this point, we have a lot of issues, but we don't necessarily have people committed to working on them
18:12:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's what will need to change to get stuff added to that milestone
18:13:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We'll talk about some of the other candidate issues later in this meeting
18:13:14 <jugglinmike> Topic: Live regions practice
18:13:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Another quick public service announcement
18:13:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're looking for people who are excited about helping the world understand how to use live regions effectively
18:13:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If anybody on this call considers themselves this person, then I have a pull request for you!
18:14:01 <jugglinmike> Jem: What is the scope of this work?
18:14:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have to provide useful guidance
18:14:23 <jugglinmike> Jem: So is usability a concern?
18:15:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We want people to understand the intent and purpose of the current live region attributes. We might also include information about what actually works. Though we generally refer people to ARIA-AT to understand what is supported and what is not
18:15:44 <jugglinmike> Jem: Should we have a "live region" project so that we understand the scope?
18:15:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's an issue associated with this pull request which should be used for that
18:16:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/78
18:17:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Also 1027 has some useful information https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/1027
18:17:15 <jugglinmike> Jem: Should I create a project to organize this?
18:17:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't think there is enough issues to warrant that
18:17:29 <jugglinmike> Jem: Got it
18:17:58 <jugglinmike> Adam_Page: Will any of this touch on aria-notify?
18:18:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We can talk about this at TPAC, but I think there should be references where appropriate
18:18:53 <jugglinmike> Jem: How is aria-annotate related?
18:19:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Annotations and notifications are two different things
18:19:24 <jugglinmike> Topic: ARIA 1.3
18:19:31 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/milestone/14
18:20:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is another plea for help. There is a list of six issues in this milestone. Three are related to annotations (like Jem was just mentioning)
18:21:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is another area where we have to decide how we want the content structured and what we're going to present
18:21:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: At least for the annotations piece, we need a willing owner
18:21:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is another topic for TPAC, but I wanted to be sure that people here knew about it before we brought it up in that larger forum
18:22:18 <jugglinmike> Jem: We're going to eventually have examples for this, right?
18:22:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We should before ARIA 1.3 becomes a recommendation
18:22:52 <jugglinmike> Topic: MDN Proposal - next steps
18:23:10 <jugglinmike> Lola: Ruth has gotten back to me. She read the proposal and the relevant GitHub issue
18:23:34 <jugglinmike> Lola: She said that the ideal way that W3C would share the content (via API) is unideal for MDN. They would prefer to manage the content however they want
18:23:58 <jugglinmike> Lola: Currently, any APIs they use currently is for data only--not for content. They're trying to avoid such dependencies for this rewrite
18:24:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know anything about MDN's governance process (who the people are who control it, etc), and that's a big gap in my understanding
18:25:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But we could have some kind of joint ownership agreement between W3C and MDN (where the actual editors of the APG content are members of both the W3C Task Force and MDN)
18:25:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have an arrangement like that with WHATWG
18:26:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That seems like a massive shift, though. I have no idea whether it's worth exploring
18:26:42 <jugglinmike> Lola: I can speak to the governance of MDN. Mozilla is the entity to speak to about changes. However, Open Web Docs are also involved as key contributors and managers of some content (e.g. the Browser Compat Data)
18:26:55 <jugglinmike> Lola: Something like what you've proposed may not be definitely out of the question
18:27:29 <jugglinmike> Lola: However, does joint ownership still meet the W3C's requirements even if the content is hosted remotely?
18:28:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If MDN has very strong editorial opinions that are in conflict with the needs of serving the needs of the web accessibility initiative, then that would be a problem
18:28:41 <jugglinmike> Lola: I think I'd like to discuss this more at TPAC, particularly because I think Daniel's input will be valuable and because he's not present today
18:29:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yeah. I would hate to halt this investigation without even just one exploratory conversation
18:29:49 <jugglinmike> Lola: The content on MDN is open source, so anyone can realistically contribute. I've contributed tutorials to MDN, and I've been involved in the decision-making process about which documents get renewed. That conversation happens in Open Web Docs
18:30:10 <jugglinmike> Lola: They have mainly contributed to MDN, but there's nothing to stop them from wanting to contribute to APG or elsewhere
18:30:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If there are some resources that we should read, then maybe put them in this issue
18:30:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That could help us be more informed and understand what the options are
18:30:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We've made a huge investment about building the APG within W3C, so if it were to move, that would be a big deal
18:31:41 <jugglinmike> Jem: I'm looking at the proposal, and I'm kind of shocked that "the APG Task Force would lose ownership of the APG"
18:32:06 <jugglinmike> Jem: That text is from the "concept 1" section of the document
18:32:36 <jugglinmike> Lola: If MDN is consuming some content through an API, that makes it difficult to maintain that content should they need to
18:32:58 <jugglinmike> Jem: That sounds more like a technical issue and less like a governance issue
18:34:01 <jugglinmike> Lola: A lot of this is coming up now because they are re-writing the whole platform. I don't know if this is actually being raised as a governance issue. It's more that, in thinking about the change to the platform, they are removing third-party dependencies. So they don't want to introduce a new dependency just as they are removing the existing ones
18:34:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I would rather have an exploratory conversation before "killing" the idea
18:34:33 <jugglinmike> Jem: I just want to make sure everyone comes to the conversation with a collaborative spirit
18:34:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thank you very much, Lola!
18:34:52 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3098
18:35:05 <jugglinmike> Topic: Where did our pattern-based GitHub projects go?
18:35:29 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3113
18:35:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We had about 40 projects in the "classic" projects. GitHub has two kinds of projects. The "modern" projects are a mixed bag
18:36:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Two of the classic projects are showing up in the current list of projects
18:36:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's the "combo box patterns and examples development project"
18:37:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That looks to me like an old "classic" project
18:37:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Why would they take them away before they've migrated them? And aren't they breaking the URLs?
18:37:47 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Maybe this is in progress. I don't think I saw the "combobox" patterns yesterday
18:38:09 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I'm also wondering if the migration happened and it's hidden at the repository level, but that it may exist at the W3C organization level
18:38:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Perhaps. But it's annoying that when you're in one of these new projects, it's hard to go to any of the associated repositories. There are no links
18:38:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But then by default, these new projects are private, but the old ones were public
18:39:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It will be a lot of work to go in and make all the projects public again
18:39:26 <jugglinmike> howard-e: It looks like the old URLs redirect to the new ones
18:39:39 <jugglinmike> howard-e: That's how the link for "tree grid" is behaving, for example
18:40:04 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I shared that on in my earlier comment on the GitHub issue, as well
18:40:12 <jugglinmike> howard-e: This may be something to check in with Daniel about
18:40:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: One thing that's really cool is this view of the new projects is actually more accessible. They have good headings--one for each column, and one for each card in each column. That makes it really easy to navigate
18:41:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe we just need to learn more about this migration. Maybe there will be no action required, but we have a lot of broken links right now
18:41:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe we just wait?
18:41:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: GitHub includes a link to "learn more" about this process
18:42:09 <Matt_King> learn more about the migration: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-05-23-sunset-notice-projects-classic/
18:42:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It looks like just two of our forty projects have been migrated. All the others are gone or hidden
18:43:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's hard to believe that the migration process would be this slow because it's so disruptive
18:43:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But we should read the rest of their documentation about the migration
18:43:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If, after reading it, we still have cause to suspect there is a problem, then we should report an issue to GitHub
18:44:22 <jugglinmike> Jem: How do we know this is related to the GitHub project migration?
18:45:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Because if you try to visit a "classic" project, then GitHub displays a message about the migration. "Sunset notice: classic projects"
18:45:16 <jugglinmike> howard-e: It does for the very first time that you visit such a project, at least
18:45:31 <jugglinmike> Jem: Okay, your plan sounds good to me, Matt_King
18:45:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe this will go away in a couple days...
18:46:36 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
18:46:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Adam_Page, jugglinmike, howard-e, Matt_King, Jem, Lola
18:46:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
18:46:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
18:46:47 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:46:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg
18:46:50 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
18:46:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items