Meeting minutes
Reviewing agenda
Matt_King: [calls for change to agenda]
No changes
Matt_King: Meeting should be on for next week
Publication planning
Matt_King: We have 4 pull requests that are ready for publication
Matt_King: We have 2 on the agenda today that would be good to get in
Matt_King: we got jongund's disclosure work in, the search landmark and others
Matt_King: does next week still work howard-e?
howard-e: yes, that will works
Matt_King: Will check in with Daniel if that still works with the w3c team
PR 3251 - New example demonstrating expandable cards/regions
github: w3c/
Matt_King: Feeling like we're close to final review here. What do you think Adam_Page?
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
Matt_King: Great. I haven't gotten to read through it all as yet
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"
Matt_King: And maybe we highlight in the about section, that it can be expanded or collapsed by clicking anywhere within the card
Adam_Page: I think I did write a bit on that
Matt_King: I missed that, the "Authors sometimes ..."
Matt_King: This is pretty great
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."
Matt_King: We might just want to break this into a couple of sentences
Adam_Page: I could turn it into a list "Authors may be tempted to do: bulleted list items"
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?
Adam_Page: I think it does
Matt_King: I just don't want us to note things authors may be tempted to do that aren't actually permitted
Adam_Page: In other words, we want to call out consequences that aren't valid in the first place?
Matt_King: Moreso, the pattern that breaks acecssibility. Guarding against that is a different kind of space for the APG to walk in
Adam_Page: also, checking the html spec, headings in buttons aren't permitted
Matt_King: However, it does mean that phrasing content is allowed to look like a heading
Matt_King: So what you could do here in your negatives is to say this doesn't permit things in your semantic headings markup
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
Matt_King: So if you want to restructure that, I can come in and do more editorial changes
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
Adam_Page: So definitely seeking some feedback as I have many details there so worried about overexplaining or leaving anything out
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
Matt_King: Most of these explain the problems we're solving. The 3rd bullet talks about ... and brevity
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
Matt_King: This 4th I think is really important (the hover events)
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?
Adam_Page: Not really. The main motivation was to display a reaction and mostly on the side of UX
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?
jongund: Yep, this is similar concept
Matt_King: So Adam_Page, you may just want to look there to borrow some of the wording for how this matters to accessibility
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
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
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
Matt_King: So I think you have the breadth of feedback request here. I can plug some commits here and there to assist
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?
Adam_Page: We have no regression tests
Matt_King: do you have any experience there?
Adam_Page: No but I would love some assistance there. I haven't had any experience writing from scratch
Matt_King: We have ids associated with each row in the role, property, state and index attributes
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
jongund: I'd offer to help but I won't be available over the next week
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
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
Matt_King: We're potentially flexible on that
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
Adam_Page: Well the design and code is ready for folks to review
Matt_King: CurtBellew, would you be available to check out the code and design after the call?
Matt_King: So I'll assign jongund and CurtBellew as reviewers right now
jongund: just note as well if your css adds light-dark, it might mess with your page
Adam_Page: got it, is dark theme on the APG roadmap?
jongund: one way to do is to create your own web component. But just an idea
Matt_King: I think if we support light-dark, it would be APG wide and that would be dependent on the WAI resources templates
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
PR 3291 - Remove role of row from TR elements in treegrid example
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This is ready for review too but I'm a little confused by what's going on with the validator here
Matt_King: Adam_Page, do you understand why it's still failing here after updating the vnurc even though it's updated
Adam_Page: [describes the failure as "Element “tr” is missing one or more of the following attributes: “role”."]
Matt_King: I wonder why the validator thinks it needs to have it
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
Adam_Page: is there a verbose option for the log?
howard-e: Unsure but I can check
Matt_King: It's so ironic, right?
Matt_King: at least an older version of the validator said the opposite
Matt_King: So which one is needed?
Adam_Page: just found a note in the vnurc which describes this exact scenario so this really is some weird paradox
Matt_King: Wondering if you took out all the rows in vnurc on row, posinset, tr, how it reacts
Matt_King: And also setsize but less sure about that
Matt_King: if there's still validator bug fixing needed, we should just make sure the right issues are raised
Adam_Page: I will comment out those lines in vnurc for now
Matt_King: I'm checking to see if the prior validator bugs we filed are still open
Matt_King: Ultimately, we want to figure out that if we remove the row=role, what validator needs from us
Adam_Page: Yep. I just pushed a commit so I can check what happens there
Issue 3277 - Treegrid focus order question
github: w3c/
Matt_King: They are asking about the focus order for the parent cell that expands/collapses
Matt_King: It could be that we need more clarity from the author. Does anybody else here read this and it's clear?
Matt_King: I can ask a clarifying question on the issue
zakim: end meeting