Meeting minutes
<giacomo-petri> present
New Issue Triage
spectranaut_: aria/#2397
… dupe, I’ll close
… aria#2396
… editorial, skip
… svg-aam#38
… anyone in the WG interested in working on SVG?
… there are a lot of incorrect mappings, and we’re well-positioned to fix them
jamesn: we’ve taken ownership of svg-aam
<dmontalvo> New ARIA Charter
jamesn: would be ideal to get someone from the former WG to own this
<smockle> https://
smockle: if this is something we’re owning, we should fix in our charter: “joint deliverable”
dmontalvo: I don’t think there’s an issue in the current charter, I’ll confirm
pkra: I have some interest in SVG mappings
jcraig: I filed some issues in 2023 re: WPT testing for graphics-aam and related svg-aam
… just got stalled because of access
spectranaut_: it’s in our repo now, so we should have access
pkra: how about a deep dive?
dmontalvo: it’s true that the current charter still says “joint deliverable”, but don’t think it will be an issue to just leave as is
New PR Triage
spectranaut_: aria#2395
… from scotto
… consistent naming for form controls
scotto: html-aam is not sufficiently descriptive when talking about gathering name from subtree
… and also there’s an accname issue about form controls nested within labels
… their values don’t get used in the name computation
… so I incorporated that into these rewritten steps
… noted this as editorial. It’s not changing any implementation, just improve accuracy of the wording
spectranaut_: any reviewers?
jcraig: I will
hdv: I will also
BryanGaraventa: I will also
spectranaut_: we should be able to land this soon
… core-aam#241
… searchbox mpping for ATK/AT-SPI2 to match IA2
… need reviewers
filippo-zorzi: I will review
scotto: do we want to add a label to resurface open PRs?
spectranaut_: yes, add `agenda+` and a comment
… say “it’s just for review” and we’ll put it in the right agenda section
pkra: we also have the GitHub summary email — maybe we could tap into that
spectranaut_: ah yes, the chairs could review that and choose things to put in the agenda?
… we’ll think about that
… if you ever need movement on something, just add `agenda+` and a comment
WPT Open PRs
spectranaut_: wpt#49647
giacomo-petri: I’ll review
hdv: I’ll review too
Adam_Page: me too
jcraig: we only need 1 reviewer for WPT and then ping me
spectranaut_: wpt#49645
scotto: this one is trickier since it’s only for the customizable select
… can’t be fully tested in all browsers yet
… but hoping to get the ball rolling
spectranaut_: should this be linked to an issue/PR?
scotto: yep, it’s linked further below
jcraig: in GitHub, go to Checks > wpt.fyi > any of the browsers > Latest results to see a visual comparison
… I’ll check #49647 now
… it can land as tentative
spectranaut_: any other reviewers?
sarah: I’ll review
spectranaut_: wpt#49643
scotto: this is closing the loop on the linked PR
… we rolled back contextual roles for listitem
… but there was still aria#2212
… and browsers are all doing different things for one text
… so made this WPT test to record
Adam_Page: I’ll review
spectranaut_: wpt#49552
… we talked about this last week
… no other reviews needed
jcraig: I’ve got a minor comment for scotto
scotto: I’ll review
[accname] Explicitly state UAs must ignore “aria-label” for slots
spectranaut_: new PR from a couple weeks ago
… keithamus volunteered to look into it
… let’s skip for now and talk with him at the next opportunity
scott: I agree
[AriaNotify] Naming for the priority property
spectranaut_: this is the last topic so we can bikeshed
alisonmaher: I opened to look for strong opinions
… for naming of priority in AriaNotify
… do we want closer mapping to aria-live?
… I’m of the notion that we should keep separate naming
… any objections?
jcraig: I think `none` and `important` are better than `polite` and `assertive`
… `none` is different than `polite`, so there could be a potential issue there
alisonmaher: yeah, they don’t directly correlate
… `none` is basically saying “not important”
… low priority
jcraig: since priority is optional
… what if we just had an important value
… we currently have an aria-live value of `off` where the announcements don’t occur unless the user is focused on the element
… like a timer
jamesn: should we do some intelligent fallback if someone specifies aria-live of assertive or polite or any unrecognized value
jcraig: a warning in the console can address that
smockle: re: jcraig’s suggestion to collapse priority to a single value, doesn’t that prevent us from adding more granular classifications in the future?
jcraig: not suggesting a single boolean, just a single named value with a fallback to null as a default
… but not a strong preference
… only because `aria-live="off"` was often misinterpreted
… but if consensus is `none`, that’s fine
Matt: in current aria-live, do you have to remove aria-live completely to toggle between the two behaviors?
jcraig: yes, I think you have to remove it
Matt: thinking about user controls where, as a user, it’d be good to have values to represent the 3 possible behaviors
… 1) the element is changing, but you only want it announced if you have focus
… 2) the element is changing, and you want it announced even if you’re not focused
<smockle> s/collapse important/collapse priority/
Matt: 3) the element is changing, and you _don’t_ want it announced
jcraig: for scenario #1, could be solved by having it be a focusable element
… but can’t always anticipate the AT focus
… web author could do that based on activeElement
… the value `none` just seems more similar in semantics to the `off` value than it does the `polite` value
… but alisonmaher might be right that we don’t need the `off` behavior for ariaNotify
alisonmaher: yes, but for verbiage do you think null would be clearer than `none`?
scott: if we were to have another value besides `important`, I’d want it to default to “low”
… `none` sounds similar to `off` and `null` sound like “not applicable”
alisonmaher: yeah, maybe “high priority” and “low priority” are better
smockle: I like high and low
… how about “now” or “later”?
alisonmaher: it’s not guaranteed that “later” won’t actually occur _now_, in reality
Matt: yeah, “how much later?”
jamesn: have we tried ChatGPT? 😉