Meeting minutes
scribe aardrian
New PR Triage
jamesn: Skipping the first as editorial
jamesn: Skipping the second as editorial
jamesn: can @pkra look at this and push it if ready? w3c/
jamesn: sounds editorial w3c/
rahim: it is
jamesn: Can you mark it as editorial?
pkra: You can ignore my suggestion. We can do it some other time as a new issue.
rahim: Is the issue the single string, literal style? Want to be consistent with specs.
jamesn: I think `code` is what we normally use.
scott: This was introduced in Web Apps WG as recommended at the time.
scott: Needed `code` when formatting wouldn't work otherwise. So the specs are riddled with backticks as a result.
jcraig: It's not rendered that way. Since it's a new ReSpec thing, keep the backticks and replaces as we go.
jamesn: Is everyone ok with this? Brian?
bryang: Yup.
jamesn: We can make an editorial task for later.
jamesn: next is w3c/
scott: The gist is the interest in an attribute.
scott: based on work from about a year ago to get this through OpenUI.
scott: Aaron is doing his best to copy the explainer.
jamesn: Do we need to agenda it?
scott: I'm all for talking about it, but timing.
jamesn: We'll take it offline. Anyone else want to review?
keithamus: I'll do it.
front-endian-jane: Me too.
jamesn: You should learn autocomplete, Adrian.
james: Last one is w3c/
Adam_Page: It has two reviews. It's in accName.
james: Is it ready to merge?
Adam_Page: It has tests, so ready to go.
jamesn: Bryan or Melanie, can you merge this.
zakim nex item
zakim nexy item
New Issue Triage
<jamesn> w3c/
jamesn: w3c/
jamesn: Rahim says JAWS is only one to announce title on `abbr`: w3c/
Rahim: SHould title contribute to accName? Can be verbose, but is not common experience.
Rahim: Should title map to accDesc?
<Jem> we have a ARIA-APG github issue for abbr, w3c/
jcraig: Every time there is a title, the browser should speak the title and that would be tedious.
jcraig: I pushed back on that.
jamesn: doesn't accName say it should use child content?
scott: This is under text-level element accName computation. Probably just needs to be clarified.
scott: Falls under title fallback.
scott: Touches on what I've brought up before for when does accName mean accName versus content?
scott: It's just the content. We've confused this.
<pkra> => w3c/
scott: The `title` attribute was called out in a comment. JAWS has a setting to allow this, but probably doesn't belong in accName at all.
scott: should be probably mapped to something else.
scott: this is unique to JAWS
jcraig: VO does. It's mapped to help.
scott: Basing this off my last testing pass.
aardrian: I've tracked support, and it's variable. Not accName IMO
jamesn: Do we need more discussion or a PR?
Rahim: I'll do it.
jcraig: It seems we've come to agreement it shouldn't be accName.
jcraig: But there are platform mappings that are needed for HTML AAM
jamesn: next up is w3c/
scott: I came here specifically for this issue.
scott: Lots of back and forth. When we created sectionheader|footer, we wanted them to be similar to group.
scott: Did not want to introduce these new roles and be too verbose. Announcing themselves everywhere when they were otherwise silent.
scott: Introduced because of a use case of naming a header/footer, that's how they became landmarks.
scott: But then people named them in other contexts, naming generic elements.
scott: This was to allow authors to use these as HTML intended and provide a meaningful role.
scott: There seems to be confusion for why they're exposed with only an accName — not accurate.
scott: There was never an expectation authors should start naming them to expose them.
scott; But if authors _do_ name them, they'll be exposed.
aardrian: Papering over a gap authors perceived in spec?
scott: That and handling things that weren't defined outside of specific contexts.
scott: Similar to groups and fieldsets — announced but not named.
jamesn: What needs to happen to move this PR forward?
pkra: Isn't the question what to do with the issue?
jamesn: I jumped ahead to the related PR.
scott: I updated a PR to align and correct for original spec intent.
scott: Also a response to giacomo's issue about naming them to expose the role.
jem: Usually a header landmark is a random or section header.
jem: YOu can have a heading structure within it.
jem: Why should it be mapping to section header versus just using headings?
Matt_King: I think you're asking an authoring choice. Why would they do this versus that. Feels outside scope.
jem: Scott's intention was an alternate header, but authors can use headings.
jamesn: The answer is HTML allows it.
pkra: And authors slapped names on them.
pkra: I think scott answered giacomo's question, so let giacomo answer it.
jamesn: With scott having to leave I wanted to jump to the PR.
giacomo-petri: I understand the intent. I'm fine with it. I'd expect an author using footer would use a section.
giacomo-petri: I would expect it to be communicated as a footer section.
giacomo-petri: Still not sure this should be exposed by AT as a grouping element.
jem: I like the comment that a header/footer in a section means something. I find the overall thing confusing, but understand authors will use it.
jamesn: Authors are using this where we wouldn't expect them, so exposing them everywhere would be a poor experience.
Matt_King: Exactly. Authors use lots of markups with no consideration for accessibility, though it has a side effect of verbosity.
Matt_King: We should assume an accessibility intent.
Matt_King: They might think adding the name could have some intent.
jamesn: Moving on...
pkra: Skip w3c/
jamesn: Next is w3c/
pkra: Came out of discussions and WebKit / APple statements.
pkra: w3c/
WPT Open PRs
jamesn: ANything we need to look at jcraig?
jcraig: I dont' think so, haven't reviewed.
rahim: I think the array initialization is ready to merge.
Adam_Page: I'll review.
Adam_Page: James, should that pseudo content marker test be tentative?
jcraig: Good question. Don't know. Fine as tentative.
jcraig: If the results are fine,e veryone's mapping, and it aligns with the spect...
Adam_Page: ONly Firefox right now
jcraig: Then tentative and check bug trackers.
TPAC Agenda
jamesn: Need agenda items for TPAC. This is the old list of F2F candidates.
jamesn: Some may not be relevant.
jamesn: Start adding stuff. Add F2F Candidate label.
jamesn: This is driven by the groups, not chairs.
jamesn: Without topics, it won't be effective.
jamesn: Yes, we can enjoy beef. But ideally do some work.
jem: There is a WhatsApp group if it's your first visit.
jamesn: Ask Jemma for help!
jcraig: There are overlapping groups. She meant the general accessibility group.
Editorial: Add <header> (sectionheader) and <footer> (sectionfooter) html-aam mappings
jamesn: We kinda talked about this already.
jamesn: Rahim owns this. What do we need to do to progress it?
Rahim: Request to Giacomo and you to move ahead.
jamesn: I'm fine with it.
giacomo-petri: I'm fine with it.
Rahim: I'll ask scott to look.
Rahim: Ready to land
Daniel: I think this PR has changed to graphics AAM?
Rahim: No, they're Prettier extra comments. Is there more to do?
Daniel: Take out the main graphics.
Rahim: I'll remove those.
pkra: You might have to rebase.
Clarify relationship between aria-hidden and aria-owns
james: This is ancient.
Adam_Page: It's an old one. Consensus 3 years ago was to enshrine what Chrome and Firefox were already doing.
Adam_Page: That is the spec change. It has remained unchanged in 3 years, until introducing accessibility child / ancestor language, but updated since then.
Adam_Page: I also wrote a companion WPT test. 2 browsers have bugs.
Adam_Page: Not sure root cause nor how they relate to core of the change.
jamesn: Do we need bugs against browsers?
Adam_Page: Eventually.
Adam_Page: When WPT is published.
jamesn: Is that the next step to get this moving?
Adam_Page: Scott found a test case after `aria-owns` resolved, there was a heading element getting its name from its content before being displaced by `aria-owns`.
Adam_Page: So there was a named element devoid of contents. Not sure there is a capability to write any tests in WPT that can confirm if element has been moved in the tree.
Adam_Page: Can only test computed name.
jcraig: Correct.
Adam_Page: That doesn't need to be a blocker. Interesting quirk, tho.
Adam_Page: Added additional test case from that feedback.
jamesn: jcraig could you review this?
jamesn: Before we merge it, we need browser implementations.
Adam_Page: They're there, but with bugs.
Adam_Page: This not a super-essential feature. `aria-owns` and `aria-hidden` are a rare mix.
<smockle> w3c/
clay: What's up with `ariaNOtify`?
ariaNotify
Jacques: The thing previously blocking us from shipping in Edge was positive feedback from this group.
Jacques: We got that, so we're waiting for another browser vendor.
jcraig: The position from other vendors got filled out. It's down to the nits now.
Jacques: The V2 has open questions that need more clarity. ANd it needs SR support, so not shipping soon.
jamesn: Apple can't tell us anything for timelines.
jcraig: Not actively working on it.
keithamus: WOuld love to work on it, can't promise timelines.
jamesn: THerefore not actively worked on by Gecko.
jcraig: This is whittled down to what can be implemented today by existing features.
jcraig: The downstream AT and API changes are blocking V2 features.
jamesn: But we would love to get this into the spec.
Jacques: Am I right in thinking it's getting those commitments?
jcraig: SOme tags we can add for awaiting implementation.
jamesn: The spec can note it's only in some browsers, but this is a bigger feature with positive statements, so the spec can move forward.
jamesn: That's a chair discussion we need to have. Ways of stating this editorially.
jamesn: Maybe a TPAC discussion.
Daniel: We would put this in the spec at the moment with Chromium and another engine. We could go to CR.
jamesn: Unless we're in permanent CR.
Daniel: Yeah, but we can take a snapshot.
jamesn: We need to persuade someone else to implement.
keithamus: If someone wants to have a go at adding it to FIrefox, I'm happy to pair with them.