16:02:15 RRSAgent has joined #aria-editors 16:02:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-aria-editors-irc 16:02:20 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:02:21 Meeting: ARIA Editors 16:02:32 present+ Daniel, James, Melanie, Rahim 16:02:42 zakim, next item 16:02:42 I see nothing on the agenda 16:03:03 I have a question if there's a place to put it in the agenda 16:03:48 scribe+ 16:03:54 topic: aria #1393 most instances of "States" and Properties" should be changed to "Attribute(s)" 16:04:03 -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2 Board view with agenda items 16:04:06 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/1 16:04:15 mgarrish has joined #aria-editors 16:04:22 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1393 16:06:00 pkra: saw this a while back, wanted to check what we want to do 16:06:01 -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=105464296&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C1393 Editorial: most instances of "States" and Properties" should be changed to "Attribute(s)" 16:06:08 spectranaut_ has joined #aria-editors 16:06:15 rahim: I wanted to do something about this for my large IDL PR 16:06:23 agenda? 16:06:37 ... I would suggest to use content attributes and IDL attributes going forward. 16:06:48 jnurthen: no objection from me. 16:06:59 ... most people won't know the difference. 16:07:25 ... it's a lot of work and I'm not sure what the benefit is / whether it's worth it. 16:07:28 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1393 16:08:39 rahim: that clarification. It helps to align with HTML to distinguish. 16:09:03 ... between these two changes I think it will help. 16:09:17 ... I'm happy to volunteer. 16:10:59 pkra: yay. I also think it would be good to move from states/props to common language. 16:11:45 topic: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2500 and validators feedback 16:12:02 https://github.com/dequelabs/axe-core/issues/4754 16:12:04 spectranaut_: I had merged this because I thought this was ready. 16:12:25 ... I filed an issue at axe but received a question from wilco about our process. 16:12:35 ... they asked when it will be in REC 16:12:46 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=105465527&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C1688 migrate changelog to main and 1.2 branch 16:12:46 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=97662046&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2436 revise approach to documenting deprecation 16:12:46 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=104008036&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2501 continue aria.js work 16:12:46 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=107488776&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2509 Deprecate presentational children 16:12:48 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=107569815&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2514 Add "living recommendation" prose to start of all AAM documents 16:12:48 agenda+ -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=107642351 Different id for assistive technology definitions in ARIA 1.2 and 1.3 16:13:00 ... but spec changes and implementations are now combined. 16:13:36 ... for now, a meeting with wilco would help to explain changes in our process / moving towards living standard. 16:13:45 q+ to comment on better signals of what needs to be reviewed by tool vendors 16:13:49 ... work out what would help them implement author requirements. 16:14:37 jnurthen: their problem is that their tool only checks against 1 version. But moving away from versions, they have a harder time working out when they want to support changes to the spec. 16:15:13 ... HTML validators have the same problem. 16:15:49 ack Daniel 16:15:49 Daniel, you wanted to comment on better signals of what needs to be reviewed by tool vendors 16:16:13 Daniel: there's room for us to better communicate changes to them 16:16:29 ... we have a good process with browsers. We could do better with checkers. 16:16:30 q+ 16:16:36 ... we could have a better signal. 16:16:37 ack jamesn 16:16:53 jamesn: could we ask the ACT group to review author requirements? 16:17:00 Daniel: yes that could work. 16:17:06 spectranaut_: I like that. 16:17:37 jamesn: just MUST changes or others as well? 16:17:50 Daniel: definitely MUST, also mappings are important to them/. 16:18:29 jamesn: mappings vary a lot 16:18:42 Daniel: right. But if accname requirements changes, then we probably should. 16:19:45 ack me 16:19:48 jamesn: right, I agree we need to be more careful. There might be downstream changes. 16:20:01 spectranaut_: we should set up a call with Wilco et al. 16:20:18 jamesn: yes. It will remain a hard problem for them. 16:20:44 ... we should also find out a process for assigning them. 16:23:37 zakim, next item 16:23:37 agendum 1 -- -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=105465527&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C1688 migrate changelog to main and 1.2 branch -- taken up [from 16:23:40 ... Daniel] 16:24:12 pkra: this is an ancient issue. Can we close this? 16:25:03 ... I can't remember. Does anyone else? 16:25:46 spectranaut_: I also don't remember either. 16:25:55 present+ 16:27:20 pkra: I'll close it then. 16:27:23 zakim, next item 16:27:23 agendum 2 -- -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=97662046&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2436 revise approach to documenting deprecation -- taken up [from 16:27:26 ... Daniel] 16:27:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:27:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-aria-editors-minutes.html Daniel 16:28:42 pkra: This came up after a PR to remove deprecation notes from the tables. 16:28:46 ... do we want to do something now? 16:29:33 spectranaut_: Not sure. We've discussed it so many times. 16:29:47 pkra: right. We can table it again. 16:30:03 jamesn: the HTML approach would be to have them at the bottom of the specs. 16:30:30 ... that way they're not in the main content 16:30:41 ... we might have trouble with aria.js extracting information. 16:31:11 melsumner: if it's deprecated, it seems fine to make it harder to find. 16:31:40 jamesn: maybe presentation is an example where we want to deprecate a role 16:32:03 rahim: directory is deprecated? 16:32:05 jamesn: right. 16:32:34 ... how would we move that? 16:33:19 pkra: we could do that in aria.js? 16:33:28 jamesn: but didn't you want to deprecate it? 16:33:49 pkra: yes, but mostly the text-matching parts. If there's good data, then the process is ok with me. 16:33:52 spectranaut_: I'll take a look. 16:34:04 zakim, next item 16:34:04 agendum 3 -- -> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/2?pane=issue&itemId=104008036&issue=w3c%7Caria%7C2501 continue aria.js work -- taken up [from Daniel] 16:34:34 pkra: this was primarily a reminder. 16:34:38 spectranaut_: we need to decide when. 16:34:44 ... maybe june? 16:34:47 pkra: sounds good! 16:36:38 topic: Different id for assistive technology definitions in ARIA 1.2 and 1.3 16:36:57 Daniel: I've come across this problem a couple of times with the ID having changed. 16:37:30 ... https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/188/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=107642351 16:38:16 pkra: would adding data-lt back be enough? 16:39:00 Daniel: probably. Just want to make sure the change didn't have an intent. 16:40:00 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1510/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051L257 16:40:44 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1510/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051L275 16:41:23 [=assistive technologies=] 16:43:28 jamesn: people are supposed to use respec syntax 16:43:50 pkra: right. But shouldn't we restore the old ID? 16:44:22 Daniel: WCAG has a definition. 16:44:30 https://respec.org/xref/?term=assistive+technologies 16:44:52 jamesn: but they don't export it. 16:45:03 pkra: does WCAG have singular or plural? 16:47:41 Daniel: given the history of the PR, we probably should argue for this being relevant. But we still export it so we don't really need to. 16:47:47 jamesn: so we just add data-lt? 16:48:04 pkra: maybe. It's not clear to me if that's sufficient. 16:48:31 jamesn: in 1.1 it was Assistive Technology but not exportet. 16:48:41 s/exportet/exported 16:49:34 Question: do we have a way to alias? 16:49:49 pkra: can we move the draft to an issue and do a PR? 16:50:14 jamesn: we should make sure our specs use respec syntax 16:50:26 ... where did this break anything? 16:50:29 Daniel: dpub. 16:50:55 jamesn: then we should change it. 16:51:05 Daniel: I'll take a look. 16:51:37 topic: history of accname and html-aam? 16:51:51 melsumner: I had asked on slack. I was confused by this. 16:52:17 jamesn: if there's no ARIA involved, why should we overcomplicate it? If there's no aria-label/by, why look at accname? 16:52:56 ... if it's pure HTML, people shouldn't have to look at accname. 16:54:10 spectranaut_: I suppose html-aam isn't as much about the mappings to the platform APIs. 16:54:33 melsumner: thanks. I've been giving talks about making sure you get an accname for various things 16:55:05 ... it's a little tricky to bridge the gap. E.g., name from content. 16:55:42 zakim, end meeting 16:55:42 As of this point the attendees have been pkra, Daniel, James, Melanie, Rahim 16:55:44 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:55:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/23-aria-editors-minutes.html Zakim 16:55:52 I am happy to have been of service, pkra; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:55:52 Zakim has left #aria-editors