and region, right? 17:19:02 scott: yep 17:19:13 q- 17:19:23 cyns: sounds like a won’t fix? 17:19:28 jamesn: yes, I agree 17:19:54 q+ 17:19:58 ack scott 17:20:13 giacomo-petri: yes, I would expect that same naming/role behavior to work the same for form 17:20:22 ack me 17:20:38 scott: I don’t know if the form behavior works the same in all browsers 17:20:51 ... but remember Joannie doing work in ATK 17:20:55 s/APK/ATK/ 17:21:11 jamesn: form maps to form role always, according to the html-aam spec 17:21:25 ... except bit of “if form has no accessible name, do not expose the element as a landmark” 17:22:09 ... I think the behavior is correct, just the spec language is slightly inconsistent between form and section 17:22:31 Matt: should an unnamed form just be a generic? 17:22:33 Agreed that current behavior is good / correct. 17:22:35 jamesn: i think it essentially is 17:22:47 scott: similar to fieldset; it’s a group regardless 17:23:02 ... always a group, just is it exposed or not — the AT can decide whether it wants to expose the role 17:23:09 jamesn: I propose we close as a won’t fix 17:23:11 aardrian: +1 17:23:23 q+ 17:23:28 jamesn: would someone like to respond in the issue? 17:23:40 Rahim: how does this square with a form that lacks an accname being an authoring error? 17:23:42 ChrisCuellar has joined #aria 17:23:45 cyns has joined #aria 17:24:09 Rahim: it’s currently that way in the spec, but after a PR gets merged it won’t be 17:24:13 present+ 17:24:16 present+ 17:24:17 jamesn: any volunteer to explain and close this out? 17:24:23 spectranaut_: I will 17:24:36 jamesn: next issue 17:24:38 in aria 1.2 it was required by aria to name form roles. but in aria 1.3 that requirement was removed 17:24:48 ... aria#2582 17:24:54 ... typo, has a PR already 17:24:56 ... 2 reviewers 17:25:05 ... will get to that, no need to discuss 17:25:15 jamesn: aria#2580 17:25:25 ... this has a PR 17:25:33 ... with 2 approved reviewers 17:26:09 zakim, next item 17:26:09 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Adam_Page 17:26:15 q? 17:26:18 ack Rahim 17:26:21 zakim, next item 17:26:21 agendum 3 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://bit.ly/wpt_a11y -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:28:09 jcraig: wpt#54126 is reviewed 17:28:09 ... better to review this one after related ARIA PR 17:28:29 ... please review, everyone who’s marked as a reviewer 17:29:04 ... wpt#53966 17:29:17 Rahim: are these tentative tests? 17:29:44 jcraig: I need to refresh 17:29:56 jamesn: roles are not case-sensitive 17:30:09 ... they used to be, but are not now, right? 17:30:12 q+ 17:30:16 jcraig: I think we decided a note was okay, but technically it was normative? 17:30:20 ... need to double-check 17:30:30 ack scott 17:30:52 scott: the only place that’s left talking about capitalization of roles is over in ARIA-in-HTML 17:31:04 ... 3-ish years ago, browsers all exposed the role correctly regardless of case 17:31:11 ... but that didn’t mean that AT worked 17:31:23 ... so we made an authoring requirement 17:31:30 jcraig: was that exclusive to Windows screen readers? 17:31:35 scott: I don’t remember 17:31:47 ... we did some tests, and you’re probably right that it was mainly Windows 17:31:54 ... so we made it an author SHOULD 17:32:10 jcraig: why not an author MUST then? 17:32:47 scott: since the primary consumers of ARIA-in-HTML are the a11y checkers 17:33:16 ... the pushback at the time was that the majority of the time it would be okay 17:33:25 ... and it wouldn’t make sense to handle one-off cases 17:33:29 ... like older versions of JAWS 17:33:45 ... they said “we can’t present that as an error” 17:35:15 jcraig: then should there be a user agent MUST expose as lower-case? 17:35:20 scott: I’d support that 17:35:28 ... then it mitigates author error 17:35:51 jamesn: any next steps? 17:36:09 jcraig: related aria#2548 17:36:10 q+ 17:36:25 giacomo-petri: about the previous point 17:36:45 ... as a tool vendor, it’s quite challenging to deal with the SHOULD 17:37:44 ... we have 2 options IMO: it should be a MUST or we should remove it 17:37:52 ... we should evaluate if it’s still a problem 17:38:09 ... it will be complex for a tester 17:38:32 jcraig: since it’s already an author SHOULD, you have the option to pop a warning rather than an error 17:39:10 jamesn: sounds very legacy, for AT that dig into the DOM 17:39:38 q+ 17:40:09 jamesn: the warning is valid, but why bother throwing it if it’s noise 17:40:12 giacomo-petri: all the “check manually” notes are basically warnings 17:40:25 ... like “check if the alt text is *meaningful*” 17:40:41 ... if we also add a “check manually” for the case of a role, it will be a lot of extra work 17:41:26 ack giacomo-petri 17:42:08 jcraig: it’s proven to be an issue in some combinations of technology 17:42:15 jamesn: that’s true for a lot of ARIA, and we don’t throw warnings in many cases 17:42:50 q? 17:44:09 jamesn: if someone has an idea, they can agenda it and we can follow-up 17:44:15 jcraig; Rahim and I will talk about this offline 17:44:20 ... possibly to clarify normative spec language 17:44:27 ... and then we check in the PR as non-tentative 17:44:47 ... if not, then we’ll make the spec change and commit the PR as tentative 17:44:48 zakim, next item 17:44:48 agendum 4 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:45:01 jamesn: any deep dive topics? 17:45:05 zakim, next item 17:45:05 agendum 4 was just opened, Adam_Page 17:45:09 zakim, close this item 17:45:09 agendum 4 closed 17:45:09 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:45:09 5. -> Improving developer experience of element reference attributes https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2588 [from agendabot] 17:45:10 zakim, next item 17:45:11 agendum 5 -- -> Improving developer experience of element reference attributes https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2588 -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:45:25 jamesn: a ton of discussion on this 17:45:33 ... from a WHATWG issue 17:45:35 sarah has joined #aria 17:45:36 ... where they tagged us 17:45:46 s/make the spec change/make the normative spec change (UAs MUST expose computedrole as lowercase)/ 17:46:09 ... mainly want to bring to everyone’s attention 17:46:09 ... nothing urgent to do just yet 17:46:09 aardrian: I agree 17:46:12 q+ 17:46:23 q+ 17:46:46 ack sarah 17:47:00 sarah: if we don’t do anything, they might spec something new and move forward 17:47:03 q+ 17:47:08 ... there are some important a11y implications in this 17:47:38 keithamus: I’ll help prevent that 17:47:52 ack Rahim 17:47:56 Rahim: process question 17:48:09 ... a11y group was tagged, so I thought I’d raise an issue 17:48:16 ... but when other groups need input, is there a formal process for that? 17:48:36 jamesn: we are not officially the ones tasked with doing a11y reviews of other w3c specs 17:48:45 ... APA are the official representatives 17:49:59 ack aardrian 17:50:09 ... and WHATWG is a special case 17:50:34 aardrian: I’m following the conversation there 17:50:39 ... don’t think we need to worry about it yet 17:50:54 ... we do want to pay attention 17:51:13 ... but there’s not a clear problem definition, and I don’t think we should act until there is one 17:51:25 q? 17:51:27 jamesn: thank you, agreed 17:51:37 zakim, next item 17:51:37 agendum 6 -- -> Empty or non-matching values for ID reference and ID reference list - Clarification on author responsibilities https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2235 -- taken up 17:51:40 ... [from agendabot] 17:51:54 jamesn: a PR from giacomo-petri 17:52:09 ... just needs one final review from me 17:52:18 giacomo-petri: there are no outstanding questions AFAIK 17:52:32 jamesn: okay, I think this should have been removed from the agenda 17:53:05 Matt: should this be covered in the APG? 17:54:17 q+ 17:54:28 ack giacomo-petri 17:54:37 Matt: present and empty is equivalent to not present? 17:54:42 giacomo-petri: yes 17:54:51 ... started with tool vendors marking this differently 17:55:06 ... spec says what user agents should do, but not authors 17:55:10 ... so this PR clarifies that 17:55:45 Matt: okay, then I think we don’t need to say anything in APG 17:55:50 jamesn: I need to review 17:55:53 ... and then we can merge 17:55:57 ... no implementations needed 17:56:09 ... no ACT 17:56:09 giacomo-petri: yes 17:56:25 ... I do still have some minor follow-up work 17:56:29 agenda? 17:56:30 jamesn: but nothing that needs review 17:56:35 zakim, next item 17:56:35 I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, Adam_Page 17:56:58 zakim, end meeting 17:56:58 As of this point the attendees have been filippo-zorzi, katez, giacomo-petri, front-endian-jane, Adam_Page, smockle, aardrian, scott, sarah, StefanS, Rahim, cyns, ChrisCuellar 17:57:01 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:57:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-aria-minutes.html Zakim 17:57:09 I am happy to have been of service, Adam_Page; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:57:09 Zakim has left #aria 18:54:43 ChrisCuellar has joined #aria