Meeting minutes
<melsumner> I have a question if there's a place to put it in the agenda
aria #1393 most instances of "States" and Properties" should be changed to "Attribute(s)"
<Daniel> Board view with agenda items
https://
pkra: saw this a while back, wanted to check what we want to do
<Daniel> Editorial: most instances of "States" and Properties" should be changed to "Attribute(s)"
rahim: I wanted to do something about this for my large IDL PR
… I would suggest to use content attributes and IDL attributes going forward.
jnurthen: no objection from me.
… most people won't know the difference.
… it's a lot of work and I'm not sure what the benefit is / whether it's worth it.
rahim: that clarification. It helps to align with HTML to distinguish.
… between these two changes I think it will help.
… I'm happy to volunteer.
pkra: yay. I also think it would be good to move from states/props to common language.
w3c/aria#2500 and validators feedback
<spectranaut_> dequelabs/
spectranaut_: I had merged this because I thought this was ready.
… I filed an issue at axe but received a question from wilco about our process.
… they asked when it will be in REC
… but spec changes and implementations are now combined.
… for now, a meeting with wilco would help to explain changes in our process / moving towards living standard.
… work out what would help them implement author requirements.
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.
… HTML validators have the same problem.
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to comment on better signals of what needs to be reviewed by tool vendors
Daniel: there's room for us to better communicate changes to them
… we have a good process with browsers. We could do better with checkers.
… we could have a better signal.
jamesn: could we ask the ACT group to review author requirements?
Daniel: yes that could work.
spectranaut_: I like that.
jamesn: just MUST changes or others as well?
Daniel: definitely MUST, also mappings are important to them/.
jamesn: mappings vary a lot
Daniel: right. But if accname requirements changes, then we probably should.
jamesn: right, I agree we need to be more careful. There might be downstream changes.
spectranaut_: we should set up a call with Wilco et al.
jamesn: yes. It will remain a hard problem for them.
… we should also find out a process for assigning them.
migrate changelog to main and 1.2 branch Daniel]
pkra: this is an ancient issue. Can we close this?
… I can't remember. Does anyone else?
spectranaut_: I also don't remember either.
pkra: I'll close it then.
revise approach to documenting deprecation Daniel]
pkra: This came up after a PR to remove deprecation notes from the tables.
… do we want to do something now?
spectranaut_: Not sure. We've discussed it so many times.
pkra: right. We can table it again.
jamesn: the HTML approach would be to have them at the bottom of the specs.
… that way they're not in the main content
… we might have trouble with aria.js extracting information.
melsumner: if it's deprecated, it seems fine to make it harder to find.
jamesn: maybe presentation is an example where we want to deprecate a role
rahim: directory is deprecated?
jamesn: right.
… how would we move that?
pkra: we could do that in aria.js?
jamesn: but didn't you want to deprecate it?
pkra: yes, but mostly the text-matching parts. If there's good data, then the process is ok with me.
spectranaut_: I'll take a look.
continue aria.js work
pkra: this was primarily a reminder.
spectranaut_: we need to decide when.
… maybe june?
pkra: sounds good!
Different id for assistive technology definitions in ARIA 1.2 and 1.3
Daniel: I've come across this problem a couple of times with the ID having changed.
… https://
pkra: would adding data-lt back be enough?
Daniel: probably. Just want to make sure the change didn't have an intent.
<jamesn> [=assistive technologies=]
jamesn: people are supposed to use respec syntax
pkra: right. But shouldn't we restore the old ID?
Daniel: WCAG has a definition.
<jamesn> https://
jamesn: but they don't export it.
pkra: does WCAG have singular or plural?
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.
jamesn: so we just add data-lt?
pkra: maybe. It's not clear to me if that's sufficient.
jamesn: in 1.1 it was Assistive Technology but not exported.
<melsumner> Question: do we have a way to alias?
pkra: can we move the draft to an issue and do a PR?
jamesn: we should make sure our specs use respec syntax
… where did this break anything?
Daniel: dpub.
jamesn: then we should change it.
Daniel: I'll take a look.
history of accname and html-aam?
melsumner: I had asked on slack. I was confused by this.
jamesn: if there's no ARIA involved, why should we overcomplicate it? If there's no aria-label/by, why look at accname?
… if it's pure HTML, people shouldn't have to look at accname.
spectranaut_: I suppose html-aam isn't as much about the mappings to the platform APIs.
melsumner: thanks. I've been giving talks about making sure you get an accname for various things
… it's a little tricky to bridge the gap. E.g., name from content.