19:03:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
19:03:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/19-aria-apg-irc
19:03:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:03:28 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
19:04:12 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria-apg
19:04:12 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:04:14 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:04:29 <jugglinmike> present+ howard-e
19:04:29 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
19:04:29 <jugglinmike> present+ Jem
19:04:36 <jugglinmike> present+ lola
19:04:42 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/November-19%2C-2024-Agenda
19:04:52 <jugglinmike> present+ curtis
19:04:59 <jugglinmike> Topic: Agenda for November 19, 2024
19:05:10 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/November-19,-2024-Agenda
19:05:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any requests for change to agenda?
19:05:26 <jugglinmike> present+ bryan
19:07:27 <jugglinmike> lola: I would like to add a small item. I am running for TAG and am encouraging W3C AC reps to vote for me
19:07:44 <jugglinmike> lola: That's it, actually
19:09:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next meeting: December 3
19:09:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No meeting November 26
19:09:28 <jugglinmike> Topic: Publication planning
19:09:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have two items completed, and two more are looking close
19:10:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Regarding the practice page for high-contrast, I am still working on editorial revisions. By the December 3rd meeting, it should be ready for final review
19:10:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Though it would be really good if people have time to look at it before then
19:10:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But during that week, it should be locked down while people do a final check
19:11:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If anyone can set time aside for review on December 3, 4, or 5--that would be really helpful
19:11:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then either jon or I could perform a final pass
19:11:47 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg
19:11:52 <CurtBellew> present+
19:12:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Regarding the multi-thumb slider: the reviews are complete as of this morning. I think it's merge-ready. howard-e has raised an issue that I want to respond to, but I don't believe that is a blocking issue
19:12:33 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 3174 - Multi-Thumb Slider missing top of thumb slider's ring on hover
19:12:38 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3174
19:14:08 <jugglinmike> howard-e: To summarize: I don't presume to understand all the calculations for the dimensions. The "ring" it produces currently renders perfectly on the preview. When it moves to the production, though, the context changes in ways that impact the appearance. There, the top of the ring is occluded
19:14:37 <lola> lola has joined #aria-apg
19:14:47 <lola> I thought this was a design choice lol
19:14:49 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think there needs to be a minimum for the "y" value. It goes negative in production
19:15:07 <jugglinmike> howard-e: As for the severity: this is a very small visual glitch. It doesn't impact much.
19:15:37 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think it could be rolled into the current pull request, but I don't know the implications of such a change for the work which has already been reviewed
19:15:47 <jugglinmike> howard-e: That's why I think this might make more sense as a follow-up patch
19:15:52 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg
19:16:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If it's kind of a minor visual thing... It sounds a little weird, but it seems like the most important decision is to worry about this later
19:16:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It sounds like an issue that jon might want to work on since he wrote the CSS. He's probably in the best position to recognize any potential side-effects
19:16:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think I'd like to bring this up during a meeting where jon is present
19:17:02 <lola> Q+
19:17:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't want to assign it to jon in his absence
19:18:12 <jugglinmike> Jem: Could you reach out to jon and ask if he would be comfortable being assigned to the issue? That way it doesn't linger
19:18:33 <jugglinmike> Jem: How about we mention jon in the GitHub issue?
19:18:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Even better
19:18:44 <jugglinmike> ack lola
19:19:15 <jugglinmike> lola: I approved the functional stuff for this. However, I don't have a Windows or Android device. It may need someone else for those two platforms (I tested on MacOS and iOS)
19:19:32 <jugglinmike> q?
19:20:26 <lola> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3172#pullrequestreview-2443554215
19:21:41 <jugglinmike> Jem: I can test on Android
19:23:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It should work via clicking on desktop and via tapping on mobile
19:23:55 <jugglinmike> lola: It's generally easier to use this functionality on desktop; tapping precision on mobile leaves something to be desired for this use case
19:24:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is for the next publication
19:24:39 <jugglinmike> Jem: Got it. I'll assign myself as a reviewer
19:24:54 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 3159 - Tooltip placement
19:24:59 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3159
19:25:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We talked about this last week, and we had questions. There is now additional information in the issue
19:26:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's a question here as to whether or not some additional guidance should be added to the tooltip pattern that is related to the instructions on how to conform to this particular pattern
19:27:12 <jugglinmike> Jem: Are they talking about the example?
19:27:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: They are just talking about the pattern; we don't have an example
19:27:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: They are suggesting that we add a note to the pattern. I don't know exactly what this note would say
19:28:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The pattern still has an issue. We don't say that it's truly finalized
19:28:22 <jugglinmike> Jem: Perhaps we should move this to the backlog
19:28:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I kind of want to make a decision on this. We could add it to the backlog if we agree that such a note is important to include in the pattern
19:29:57 <jugglinmike> Jem: I believe there is a new WCAG rule about not hiding or blocking the view of some issue
19:30:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Perhaps you're thinking of the rule that JAWS-test referenced
19:30:26 <jugglinmike> Jem: No, there's more than 1.4.13
19:31:05 <jugglinmike> lola: I agree with what's mentioned in the issue. I personally don't think there's any action for the APG to take
19:31:24 <jugglinmike> lola: The APG isn't where you go to discover the "rules"; WCAG is where you go to learn those
19:31:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't think they're suggesting that we add definitive text
19:32:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Regarding the text "whenever possible, place the tooltip above"
19:32:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When you move the pointer around, I'm imagining that you move it around, and because it's so big, you don't move it directly on top of your target. That rather, you move to point at the target
19:32:53 <jugglinmike> lola: Once your pointer enter the space, that will trigger the tooltip
19:33:11 <jugglinmike> lola: The position of the pointer really doesn't matter in the sense that once it enters, it will trigger
19:33:30 <jugglinmike> lola: The reporter has given an example where the tooltip is at the bottom and the pointer is also at the bottom
19:33:38 <Jem> I agree with this comment https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3159#issuecomment-2440529068
19:34:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is the entire visible pointer the pointer? Or is the pointer so large that it could actually be on two elements at the same time?
19:34:09 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: The latter
19:34:34 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: I always assumed that the very tip of the pointer is the actual determining factor
19:35:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is it possible that the tip is pointing at a different element than the element being covered by the bulk of the pointer
19:35:32 <siri> siri has joined #aria-apg
19:35:41 <jugglinmike> lola: I'm testing now. I am pointing at one element while covering another element, and I can only click on the former
19:35:51 <siri> present+
19:36:16 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: 1.4.13 content on hover includes a requirement that you have to be able to move your mouse into the popup content
19:36:52 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: It sounds like the person is acknowledging that. It also seems more convenient if the popup happens above. For me, I get where Jem is coming from by suggesting that this is a backlog
19:37:25 <jugglinmike> Jem: If you look at the JAWS-test comment, I really agree with that. There's no way we can control pointer size or location. That's a customized setting for the
19:37:35 <jugglinmike> s/for the/for the user's need/
19:38:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The purpose of the patterns is to help authors implement the pattern in an accessible way. Our role is to give them guidance
19:38:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If there are important things that they need to consider that are related to the design of the element--if there's something that the authors should be thinking about AND we can give them practical guidance, than it could be in scope
19:39:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The question to me, is: is there practical guidance that we can give? Or is it the case that you can't actually predict what the best location of the tooltip would be, maybe ever?
19:39:58 <jugglinmike> Jem: My only advice would be to think about low-vision users when you implement this tooltip. There is a chance that the pointer obscures the button itself. We have to consider all kinds of disability
19:40:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That doesn't seem like very actionable advice in this scenarios. Instead of saying "think about", we should be saying "test in a certain condition"
19:40:53 <jugglinmike> Jem: Then it could be advice for low-vision users. I'm trying to think about the action that an author can take
19:41:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If Google had read our tooltip pattern and included some kind of note about this, would they have been able to make a different design decision?
19:41:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It doesn't seem clear to me that the guidance that you should always place it above--is that practical? There are situations where you can't place it above
19:43:47 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: The thing with the tooltip is that you will have a default position where it appears relative to the pointer, but that default will be overridden by the context
19:44:18 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/focus-not-obscured-minimum.html
19:44:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: As long as they support 1.4.13, then they should always be able to move the pointer to a location so that it is not obscuring the tooltip and so that its tip is still hovering on the tooltip (so they will be able to read it)
19:44:50 <jugglinmike> Jem: I remembered the section of WCAG that I referenced earlier. I copied a link in IRC
19:45:18 <Jem> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/9MH08g3C/
19:48:39 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Authors only have access to the coordinates of the tip of the pointer. They cannot know the bounding box of the pointer image itself. There's no guarantee that the pointer image will always be directly below the pointer's tip
19:48:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The question is whether to add a note or not
19:49:08 <jugglinmike> s/note/note about where to place the tooltip/
19:49:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The only condition that we would want to add such a note is to say, first, that we believe that it should be in a specific location for a specific set of reasons
19:50:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think that what I'm gathering from this conversation is that we don't have those two things: the location where we think it should normally be, nor the set of reasons why we would want it to be in that location (there are too many things that the author does not know about the pointer, and there are too many conditions introduced by the user agent that would motivate putting the tooltip in a variety of locations)
19:51:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we can say that we understand the concern but we don't believe we can provide actionable guidance that will have broad support across the accessibility community
19:52:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Browsers could change how they do extra-big pointers. Like jugglinmike was saying: they could point down from above or straight up from below
19:52:13 <jugglinmike> Jem: And user-agents can change their size
19:52:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we're okay with closing this as a "won't fix"?
19:52:57 <jugglinmike> Jem: Yes
19:53:00 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: Yes
19:53:00 <CurtBellew> +1
19:53:23 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 3154 - Developing a Keyboard Interface for charts and interactive graphics
19:54:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We only have seven minutes remaining in this meeting, but I want to give this more than seven minutes. Let's skip to the next item in the agenda
19:54:59 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 3153 - Request for design requirements in button pattern
19:55:08 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3153
19:55:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The way I interpret this is that this person would like us to provide visual design guidance for buttons
19:55:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This feels to me like it could be outside of the scope of the APG
19:55:46 <jugglinmike> Jem: It could be WCAG...
19:56:09 <jugglinmike> Jem: Are they asking us to change the button design?
19:56:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No, I think they want an additoin to the button pattern. They say that button should have some indication that it is a button. Also that it has a minimum contrast ratio (which is obviously WCAG)
19:58:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the introduction to the APG, we have a "purpose" section...
19:58:21 <siri> +q
19:58:30 <jugglinmike> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/about/introduction/
19:59:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We do not explicitly say that the APG is not about giving guidance on the visual experience. However, we don't do that for any other patterns. It doesn't feel like the job of the APG
19:59:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe that represents an omission in the definition of our scope
19:59:49 <Jem> "APG is not a UI Design System"
19:59:56 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/about/introduction/
20:00:04 <jugglinmike> siri: All of the criteria they have requested are WCAG requirement
20:00:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We make sure that everything we do is consistent with WCAG
20:00:37 <jugglinmike> siri: I don't think we did this for other examples, either
20:00:51 <jugglinmike> Jem: I think it's enough that the introduction says that "APG is not a UI Design System"
20:01:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Our job is not to be a WCAG explainer. WCAG explains WCAG
20:01:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe we cover it in the prerequisite knowledge
20:01:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm going to close this unless anyone objects
20:01:45 <jugglinmike> [no objections]
20:01:57 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:01:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, howard-e, Matt_King, Jem, lola, curtis, bryan, CurtBellew, siri
20:01:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
20:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/19-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
20:02:08 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:02:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg
20:04:03 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-apg