18:07:00 RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg 18:07:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/10-aria-apg-irc 18:07:04 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:07:05 Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force 18:07:09 howard-e has joined #aria-apg 18:07:25 present+ 18:07:33 present+ 18:07:41 present+ jongund 18:07:49 present+ Matt_King 18:07:59 present+ CurtBellew 18:08:01 scribe+ 18:08:22 TOPIC: Reviewing agenda 18:08:46 Matt_King: [calls for change to agenda] 18:09:01 No changes 18:09:31 CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg 18:09:36 Matt_King: Meeting should be on for next week 18:09:41 TOPIC: Publication planning 18:10:31 Matt_King: We have 4 pull requests that are ready for publication 18:10:41 Matt_King: We have 2 on the agenda today that would be good to get in 18:10:58 Matt_King: we got jongund's disclosure work in, the search landmark and others 18:11:16 Matt_King: does next week still work howard-e? 18:11:25 howard-e: yes, that will works 18:11:40 Matt_King: Will check in with Daniel if that still works with the w3c team 18:12:02 present+ 18:12:10 TOPIC: PR 3251 - New example demonstrating expandable cards/regions 18:12:16 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3251 18:12:35 Matt_King: Feeling like we're close to final review here. What do you think Adam_Page? 18:13:07 Adam_Page: I think so too. I made small quality of life changes to the code. I added preferred motion handling and mainly, I add a support draft of documentation for the pattern. So I think we're ready 18:13:45 Matt_King: Great. I haven't gotten to read through it all as yet 18:14:43 Matt_King: I was thinking we can expand the about just a bit .. to say "create an expandable card". So I'm wondering if we might provide a slightly more colorful description, mainly if people were searching for some word other than "card". I'm thinking of terms like "creating a card or region that can expanded or collapsed" 18:15:05 Matt_King: And maybe we highlight in the about section, that it can be expanded or collapsed by clicking anywhere within the card 18:15:16 Adam_Page: I think I did write a bit on that 18:15:46 Matt_King: I missed that, the "Authors sometimes ..." 18:15:59 Matt_King: This is pretty great 18:17:25 Matt_King: I'm thinking a bit that we haven't made such a statement in the APG or at least phrased in this way but I'm kinda liking it. Re: "To achieve this, authors may be tempted to nest the entirety of the rich summary within the disclosure button itself, but this can make the button’s accessible label cumbersome, inaccurate, or disorienting." 18:18:10 Matt_King: We might just want to break this into a couple of sentences 18:18:54 Adam_Page: I could turn it into a list "Authors may be tempted to do: bulleted list items" 18:19:27 Matt_King: I like that. What we're saying here is that people might want to do things here that are still html-legal. Does html permit headings inside buttons? 18:19:31 Adam_Page: I think it does 18:19:56 Matt_King: I just don't want us to note things authors may be tempted to do that aren't actually permitted 18:20:19 Adam_Page: In other words, we want to call out consequences that aren't valid in the first place? 18:20:47 Matt_King: Moreso, the pattern that breaks acecssibility. Guarding against that is a different kind of space for the APG to walk in 18:21:04 Adam_Page: also, checking the html spec, headings in buttons aren't permitted 18:21:27 Matt_King: However, it does mean that phrasing content is allowed to look like a heading 18:21:51 Matt_King: So what you could do here in your negatives is to say this doesn't permit things in your semantic headings markup 18:22:36 Matt_King: So things like not permitting links, making the label long and difficult to understand ... this is really good and I think we're getting somewhere here 18:22:48 Matt_King: So if you want to restructure that, I can come in and do more editorial changes 18:23:15 Adam_Page: Sounds good. And FWIW the about section is what I worked on the least. The bulk of what i did was in the accessibility section 18:23:38 Adam_Page: So definitely seeking some feedback as I have many details there so worried about overexplaining or leaving anything out 18:24:21 Matt_King: In the accessibility section, we typically cover the things that are non-obvious. For instance, I assume the reduced motion is in this list. The high contrast stuff is also non-obvious 18:25:23 Matt_King: Most of these explain the problems we're solving. The 3rd bullet talks about ... and brevity 18:25:47 Matt_King: So thinking we don't need the 1st bullet, the 2nd is a maybe. The 3rd we want to restructure to talk about the goal 18:26:10 Matt_King: This 4th I think is really important (the hover events) 18:26:45 Matt_King: Is there any accessibility thinking behind the choices you've made here that distinguishes your implementation from others that may be considered less accessible? 18:27:12 Adam_Page: Not really. The main motivation was to display a reaction and mostly on the side of UX 18:28:04 Matt_King: In some other examples like jongund's, we can borrow some of the wording like what was done in the radiobutton. This is similar to that work, right? 18:28:14 jongund: Yep, this is similar concept 18:28:37 Matt_King: So Adam_Page, you may just want to look there to borrow some of the wording for how this matters to accessibility 18:29:37 Matt_King: So pointing these things out is important to designers. What's missing is the reason why we did these things, to support accessibility. That's to help people understand why these are important elements of the design 18:31:14 Adam_Page: It's becoming clear as we go through this, that some of these decisions were done out of instinct, rather than the accessible reasoning 18:31:45 Matt_King: Well that's the difference with you who is honed in this work and the folks that come here without that seeking the guidance and why that's the guidance 18:32:15 Matt_King: So I think you have the breadth of feedback request here. I can plug some commits here and there to assist 18:32:50 Matt_King: Now also thinking we could push back the publication to the 19th so we could land this. It feels very close. This is ready for code and design review. But do we have regression tests? 18:32:58 Adam_Page: We have no regression tests 18:33:09 Matt_King: do you have any experience there? 18:33:39 Adam_Page: No but I would love some assistance there. I haven't had any experience writing from scratch 18:34:16 Matt_King: We have ids associated with each row in the role, property, state and index attributes 18:34:43 jongund: if you also look at the setup of the other disclosure examples, you could probably copy a lot of what's there because these are similar 18:34:58 jongund: I'd offer to help but I won't be available over the next week 18:35:22 Adam_Page: I can try to get that done. A little worried I won't be able to wrap it by publishing but will try 18:36:03 Matt_King: Another thing we can do after learning the aria-at examples aren't dependent on the publication is to even push out the date of the publication 18:36:11 Matt_King: We're potentially flexible on that 18:36:55 Matt_King: I think some folks would out there would be happy to see this get in. So maybe we should wait til next week to assign those reviewers 18:37:10 Adam_Page: Well the design and code is ready for folks to review 18:37:31 Matt_King: CurtBellew, would you be available to check out the code and design after the call? 18:39:01 Matt_King: So I'll assign jongund and CurtBellew as reviewers right now 18:40:08 jongund: just note as well if your css adds light-dark, it might mess with your page 18:40:24 Adam_Page: got it, is dark theme on the APG roadmap? 18:41:02 jongund: one way to do is to create your own web component. But just an idea 18:41:52 Matt_King: I think if we support light-dark, it would be APG wide and that would be dependent on the WAI resources templates 18:42:27 jongund: Makes sense. The main thing may be to try and show how one would support it in APG examples. So that may be a separate question on if we want to support it 18:42:41 TOPIC: PR 3291 - Remove role of row from TR elements in treegrid example 18:42:51 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3291 18:43:11 Matt_King: This is ready for review too but I'm a little confused by what's going on with the validator here 18:44:32 Matt_King: Adam_Page, do you understand why it's still failing here after updating the vnurc even though it's updated 18:45:02 Adam_Page: [describes the failure as "Element “tr” is missing one or more of the following attributes: “role”."] 18:45:14 Matt_King: I wonder why the validator thinks it needs to have it 18:45:51 Matt_King: I thought the validator was throwing an error if it was present before but we had a line in vnurc that said don't throw this error 18:46:28 Adam_Page: is there a verbose option for the log? 18:48:14 howard-e: Unsure but I can check 18:49:28 Matt_King: It's so ironic, right? 18:49:42 Matt_King: at least an older version of the validator said the opposite 18:49:49 Matt_King: So which one is needed? 18:50:35 Adam_Page: just found a note in the vnurc which describes this exact scenario so this really is some weird paradox 18:51:44 Matt_King: Wondering if you took out all the rows in vnurc on row, posinset, tr, how it reacts 18:52:09 Matt_King: And also setsize but less sure about that 18:52:41 Matt_King: if there's still validator bug fixing needed, we should just make sure the right issues are raised 18:53:27 Adam_Page: I will comment out those lines in vnurc for now 18:54:37 Matt_King: I'm checking to see if the prior validator bugs we filed are still open 18:57:36 Matt_King: Ultimately, we want to figure out that if we remove the row=role, what validator needs from us 18:57:54 Adam_Page: Yep. I just pushed a commit so I can check what happens there 18:58:09 TOPIC: Issue 3277 - Treegrid focus order question 18:58:23 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3277 18:58:45 Matt_King: They are asking about the focus order for the parent cell that expands/collapses 18:59:09 Matt_King: It could be that we need more clarity from the author. Does anybody else here read this and it's clear? 18:59:57 Matt_King: I can ask a clarifying question on the issue 19:00:42 zakim: end meeting 19:01:02 zakim, end meeting 19:01:02 As of this point the attendees have been howard-e, Adam_Page, jongund, Matt_King, CurtBellew 19:01:05 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 19:01:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/10-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim 19:01:13 I am happy to have been of service, Matt_King; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 19:01:13 Zakim has left #aria-apg 19:01:58 Matt_King has left #aria-apg 20:27:39 jongund has joined #aria-apg 20:32:29 jongund has joined #aria-apg 20:43:29 jongund has joined #aria-apg 21:12:40 jongund has joined #aria-apg 22:11:22 jongund has joined #aria-apg 22:57:20 jongund has joined #aria-apg 23:06:15 jongund has joined #aria-apg