Meeting minutes
<Jem> https://
Setup and Review Agenda
Jem: Next meeting: October 7
Jem: Any requests for change to agenda?
Jem: Hearing none, we'll use the agenda as planned
Publication planning
Jem: I know Daniel and howard-e worked hard on this
Matt_King: The latest news I have regarding the publication is a question on the pull request which howard-e answered
Matt_King: I reviewed an editorial correction last night
howard-e: It's on the "main" branch, and once something reaches the "main" branch, then it will be included in the open publication pull request
Matt_King: Ah, so the pull request is to merge "main" into "publication"
howard-e: That's right. We're just waiting on the merge, now
howard-e: There shouldn't be anything else. I'll be monitoring for further questions, just in case
Matt_King: Once it's merged, we'll need some folks to go out and take a look and verify that everything went through properly
Matt_King: I should be able to help with that
Jem: Me, too
Matt_King: We don't know when it's going to get merged. It seems like it's ready to go, so we're just waiting for Remi to merge. It could get merged as early as today or tomorrow morning
Matt_King: I made another milestone for the next publication, perhaps at the end of October
Matt_King: I wonder if there are any items that we want to land before TPAC and that we can land before TPAC
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: I'm also wondering about a couple patches from jongund. One regards skipTo.js
jongund: I'm working on that one, now
Jem: So we'll add more items for the next publication as we finish them
Issue 3193: Next aria-actions example
github: w3c/
Jem: This sounds exciting!
Matt_King: This was an issue that Aaron raised last year after TPAC
Matt_King: At that time, we had the example which Adam_Page worked on--I think it was "tabs with manual activation"
Matt_King: In the ARIA-AT group, we're beginning the work of a JAWS test plan for that pattern. I would like to share it at TPAC, but I think Aaron was requesting a different specific example because it includes some features that we can't really model in the "tabs" example
Matt_King: He's talking about adding tabs in something like a listbox or a tree--where you have buttons that appear as you navigate through the list
Matt_King: ...unlike tabs where the visibility of the buttons is commonly persistent. In this case, though, the visibility wouldn't be persistent. It could be based on hover (but gosh, how do you make that work with touch...? It's not really described here)
Matt_King: So I guess there are some things to work out in terms of how this would behave, but is there anyone who is excited to work on it?
<Adam_Page> https://
Adam_Page: Sarah put together a page of examples when she initially proposed aria-actions. None of them use aria-actions; they are just patterns that she thought aria-actions could solve
Adam_Page: I just reviewed them, though, and I don't think they relate exactly to what Aaron is describing?
Matt_King: The question is: what aspects of actions are we NOT demonstrating with the "tabs" example?
Matt_King: One, I think, is visibility, since all tabs are visible at all times
Adam_Page: If not for Aaron mentioning the listbox role specifically, I would have suggested forking the "tabs" example and add that reveal
Matt_King: Is that an authentic use, though?
Adam_Page: I'm not sure
Adam_Page: Also, Gmail came to mind--that UI pattern where you bring focus to a list of things, and you want to perform some action on that list
Adam_Page: I just looked at production GMail. They do reveal actions on hover, but they do not reveal them on focus
CurtBellew: I find this interesting, but I do have some questions. I can't think of a use-case involving options in a list with actions on them
Matt_King: I've experienced this in a lot of cases
Matt_King: Mobile versions of mail are all like that--they're all some kind of list with actions that don't show when you're just looking at the list
Adam_Page: Another (maybe contrived) example that came to mind is an ordered list that allows for resorting
Matt_King: We have an example like that: the listbox with rearrange-able options. We could make an aria-actions version of that
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: I think the simpler, the better
Matt_King: In my experience, this happens a lot
Matt_King: In 1password, you have a long list of different entries, and you can perform actions like "edit" and "delete"
Matt_King: It's like a contextual toolbar
CurtBellew: Ah, so as opposed to making a list of selections, these are actions with a list of sub-actions
Matt_King: Gmail is a grid, but we could make a much simpler list
Matt_King: The select-only combobox is "select your favorite fruit." That's a very simple list with some ready-to-go content.
Matt_King: We have a bunch of examples that provide content so we don't have to start from zero
Matt_King: What else did Sarah suggest as examples?
Adam_Page: She had trees where each tree could contain items like "files" which you could delete
Adam_Page: She had tabs, she also had listboxes
Matt_King: We have examples of both listbox and tree that are fairly straight-foward and either of which would satisfy Aaron's requirements
Matt_King: If you want to use aria-actions and just learn about the different ways of coding it, it seems to me that if you had an example of it applied to a listbox, that's sufficient. That you could use that example to figure out how to apply it to a terr
Matt_King: I think we would copy it an make a whole new example (to avoid complexity)
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: The "re-arrangeable options listbox" is pretty complicated in the sense that it currently has two listboxes
Adam_Page: I don't know if it's necessary for this example to have a notion of one being selected
Matt_King: We just have selection following focus because they're all single-selects
Matt_King: If it was multiple select, that feels like it could make it a lot more complicated
Matt_King: I think "scrollable listbox" is the simplest example of them all
Jem: So we would add aria-action to each option?
Adam_Page: Yes
Jem: Because it's simpler than any other pattern?
Matt_King: Yeah. I don't know we need to bring in the complexity of the other examples in order to demonstrate the essential features of aria-actions
Matt_King: The other thing that would differentiate this from "tabs" is that we would reveal each of these individually. In tabs, it would be rare to see three buttons displayed when you hover on the tab. In a listbox, on the other hand, that would almost be the norm. You would never put another click in front of the actions
Adam_Page: Agreed
Matt_King: And three actions is probably sufficient. I kind of like "remove" for one because it shows how you have to respond to destructive options in terms of focus management
Adam_Page: Right, yes
Matt_King: All of those end up don't something that is focus-management-ish
Adam_Page: Maybe we have an action like "Favorite"
Matt_King: Yeah. That could add a little "favorite" star next to it. You could favorite as many as you like
Adam_Page: At first, I was tempted to overload aria-selected, but that doesn't make sense. But when you get to a listbox, how do you want it announced? I imagine you want it worked into the name
Matt_King: Yeah, it should be part of the name
Jem: "add" button and "trash" button are typical
Matt_King: Yeah.. "move up/down", "delete/trash", and "trash"
Matt_King: One changes the content of the current item without moving focus
Matt_King: If you move up, I think you would maintain focus (just like we do in the other ones) so that way when you move up, you're able to continuing moving up
Jem: Can you just go with "edit", "trash", and "favorite"?
Jem: But maybe we're ready to decide if we want to do this
Matt_King: I'm wondering if implementing this might help move some of the aria-actions discussions forward at TPAC
CurtBellew: That makes sense.
CurtBellew: I won't be at TPAC
CurtBellew: But I can devote some resources to it before TPAC. I have some time right now (though those things can change quickly)
Jem: What other discussion is needed to make this happen? Do we want to add this for the next agenda?
Matt_King: Adam_Page's recent experience demonstrated how so much nuance is unearthed as a result of implementation
Adam_Page: Right. Touch, for instance
Matt_King: We don't have to worry about touch in the first iteration
CurtBellew: Yeah, I'd worry about that last
Matt_King: We can release without touch support and then add touch support later
Matt_King: I can cut a branch and set up the files for you, CurtBellew
CurtBellew: That would help me get started
Matt_King: I'll make a branch for you to work on
CurtBellew: Great!
Issue 3315: Table naming guidance
github: w3c/
Matt_King: ARIA 1.2 had specified that naming a table is required. In ARIA 1.3, the group has wisely removed the requirement to name the table
Matt_King: Our table-naming guidance still reflects the ARIA 1.2 requirement
<jongund> I need to go a little early today
Matt_King: We can change this to match ARIA 1.3
Matt_King: The ARIA spec text, currently reads that "authors SHOULD"
CurtBellew: I couldn't find this when I went looking
Matt_King: If you go to the "table" role in the ARIA 1.3 draft (and there is a link to that in this issue)
CurtBellew: This is a huge change for us! I can't believe I missed it
Adam_Page: We found instances in the real world where the name wasn't helpful
Matt_King: I thought we previously had a pull request that made all the necessary changes in APG. Maybe we should check the others, too
<Adam_Page> w3c/
Matt_King: What this does is, it makes your job a little bit harder. You don't have strict guidance, anymore. The APG will say that something is "recommended"
<Adam_Page> w3c/
Adam_Page: I just shared two URLs. The first is the ARIA spec pull request that made the spec change. And the second is the aria-practices counterpart. It's just an issue that I created, and it's still open
Siri: Where is the guidance on aria-label?
Matt_King: It's in the table on the editor's draft of the ARIA spec
Siri: I don't see anything about aria-label there
Matt_King: The "characteristics" table only includes normative-MUST requirements
Siri: How can we understand this change by looking at the spec itself when it is not written anywhere?
Matt_King: I thought that we were supposed to go to "evergreen" at the beginning of the year. Maybe that's not actually happening until after 1.3 is done
Matt_King: That may be affecting the AXE core decision
Matt_King: Okay, so the question is, I think, what the APG guidance should be
Matt_King: We have two options
Matt_King: We can list it as "recommended" or "discretionary"
Matt_King: I think that because there is an "authors SHOULD" in the spec, the most appropriate guidance for APG is "recommended"
Matt_King: Since "discretionary" is "optional or in some cases discouraged"
Matt_King: If we look at the next row down after table (which has a "recommended" for tab list), the very first bullet of the "recommended" ones for the third column explains why we recommended
Matt_King: We don't do that for the required ones
Matt_King: We could almost copy the first bullet of the "tablist" one word-for-word
Adam_Page: I think that would work
Adam_Page: Do we want to update the others while we're at it?
Matt_King: Yeah, I think so
Adam_Page: The issue I raised is issue #3244 in aria-practices
<Jem> w3c/
Matt_King: I'm hesitant to put my name on it because I think it will be a long time before I can get to it. Probably that's the same reason everyone else is hesitating
Matt_King: We're definitely going to change what's in the APG from "required" to "recommended". And we'll make a similar change for the other roles, as well
Jem: I can do this. Adam_Page can you review my work?
Adam_Page: Sure
Matt_King: Awesome, thank you Jem!
Issue 3314: Potential infra bug?
github: w3c/
Matt_King: Someone has reported a method somewhere in our code that isn't working the way it ought to
Matt_King: It sounds like it might be in the link-checker code, but they didn't provide a code pointer. I didn't go searching for the function
Matt_King: a function called "indexLineNumbers"
Matt_King: I don't know if this is causing any problems, so I don't know how this person discovered it
howard-e: Yes, it is in the link checker
howard-e: What they're reported could happen, but I'd be very surprised if it did
Matt_King: Can you write a comment and close the issue, howard-e?
howard-e: Sure
Jem: I assigned it to howard-e
Matt_King: Thanks!