18:01:19 RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg 18:01:23 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/07-aria-apg-irc 18:01:23 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:01:24 Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force 18:01:32 Adam_Page has joined #aria-apg 18:01:32 jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg 18:01:51 cbellew has joined #aria-apg 18:02:18 present+ 18:02:20 present+ 18:02:23 present+ jugglinmike 18:02:26 scribe+ jugglinmike 18:02:30 present+ arigilmore 18:02:34 present+ howard-e 18:02:41 present+ Daniel 18:02:54 present+ jem 18:03:47 topic: Setup and Review Agenda 18:03:50 https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/October-7%2C-2025-Agenda 18:03:54 howard-e has joined #aria-apg 18:03:59 jem: Next meeting: October 14 18:04:04 jem: Any requests for change to agenda? 18:04:20 Daniel: Can we discuss issue 3373, as well? 18:04:48 Jem: Yes, I saw that. We can add it to the agenda, directly after the discussion of publication planning 18:05:24 present+ 18:05:58 topic: Publication planning 18:06:07 Matt_King: As Daniel mentioned, the September publication wen out 18:06:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/wai-aria-practices/pull/436/ September milestone publisshed 18:06:11 s/wen/went/ 18:06:56 Matt_King: We have seven things to check following that publication 18:07:13 Matt_King: Adam_Page could you go to the production site and make sure the spin button is all good? 18:07:15 Adam_Page: Sure 18:07:28 Matt_King: I'll take a look at the editorial changes for keyboard in grid 18:07:53 Matt_King: We have one related to the editor menubar example. This is a tab index management issue. 18:08:05 Matt_King: Fix so that only the most recent item is in the tab sequence 18:08:18 Matt_King: arigilmore I believe you worked on this; would you mind verifying it on the production website? 18:08:20 arigilmore: Sure 18:08:44 Matt_King: I can take the "read this first" item, and I'm not worried about the JavaScript item 18:09:06 Matt_King: If you folks find any problems, please raise a new issue. I don't expect any problems, but we always want to double-check 18:09:16 Matt_King: So that covers the past publication milesone 18:09:25 Matt_King: For the next publication milestone, we have three items so far 18:09:37 Matt_King: That includes the experimental example which we talked about last week 18:09:50 Matt_King: The date on this milestone is flexible 18:10:09 Matt_King: The one place we are seeking additional review is jongund's pull request, number 3213 18:10:15 Matt_King: This is the skipTo link and menu 18:10:26 Matt_King: jongund pushed a commit and asked if someone could test it on iOS 18:10:50 Matt_King: Adam_Page and arigilmore were reproducing this problem earlier. Would either of you be willing to take a look at jongund's pull request? 18:11:19 Adam_Page: Yes, we both did this already, just today. Unfortunately, we can both still reproduce the problem 18:11:31 Matt_King: Okay, that's it for the publication status update! 18:11:47 Topic: "Read this first" code upate 18:11:55 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3373 18:12:11 Daniel: I think it would be more elegant if we could use static HTML for this 18:12:27 Siri has joined #aria-apg 18:12:31 Daniel: We're more open to Jekyll "include" directives than we used to be 18:12:40 Present+ 18:13:35 howard-e: I think the Jekyll "include" (or any frontmatter approach) would be going back to what wasn't wanted. There was an ask that the content in "read this first" could be controlled from this repository. We use a JavaScript approach to simplify maintenance for contributors 18:13:54 howard-e: if it was done in pure HTML, that would involve duplicating the template content across over 30 patterns 18:14:13 Matt_King: So we have client-side JavaScript not just for "read this first" but also for the disclosure on the example pages. 18:14:17 Matt_King: We have it in a couple places 18:14:30 Matt_King: What is the problem with the client-side JavaScript, Daniel? 18:14:46 Daniel: If you've disabled JavaScript, then the content is not available to you 18:15:03 Matt_King: But if you've disabled JavaScript, then most of the APG is not useful to you 18:15:40 Matt_King: Is there a way for the build process to perform the injection into every page as it's built? Is that somehow preferable? 18:16:18 Matt_King: I don't think that we want content repeated across many pages in the source repository. If we want to change content in that scenario, we have to update multiple pages. That makes the content-management more difficult, from an editorial perspective 18:17:11 Jem: What is the downside of using "include"? 18:17:27 Jem: What I'm hearing from Daniel is, "why don't we just use a simpler approach?" 18:17:54 howard-e: All that content was controlled in that repository. There are some assumptions which could be broken 18:18:26 howard-e: If we go back to the approach where the "builder" repository injects it, perhaps with a configuration file, then there may be a happy medium, here 18:18:39 Matt_King: The builder is just supposed to be an automated thing that transforms the content 18:18:49 Matt_King: The build should not be making editorial decisions 18:19:50 Matt_King: Is "include" a Jekyll feature? 18:20:04 Daniel: Yes 18:20:18 Matt_King: Then we'll end up mixing Jekyll directive into our HTML 18:20:50 Matt_King: Our content repository doesn't have any Jekyll in it. That was part of the beauty of the separation--that we don't require anybody to know anything about Jekyll in order to contribute to APG 18:21:08 present+ 18:21:16 Matt_King: Is there a "pure HTML" way of including content? 18:21:24 Daniel: I'll have to look into that 18:22:42 Daniel: you could argue that this is not exactly content per se... 18:22:54 Daniel: I'll reflect on this further and share my thoughts as a comment on the issue 18:23:22 Matt_King: In today's world, I wonder if we should be at all concerned about users who disable JavaScript 18:23:36 Daniel: They can read about the examples, they just can't interact with them 18:23:55 Matt_King: I wonder what that kind of person is even doing. And whether they're even part of the target audience 18:24:07 Daniel: This is motivated by discussions around the WAI website 18:24:16 Jem: Is this a build process issue? 18:24:18 Matt_King: Yes 18:24:33 Jem: I used to know people who disable JavaScript, they were mainly security experts 18:24:43 Topic: Issue 3193: listbox example with aria-actions 18:25:04 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3193 18:25:09 Matt_King: I created a draft pull request 18:25:15 Matt_King: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3372 18:25:32 Matt_King: The HTML page is basically complete, including proposed keyboard documentation and roles, states, and properties 18:26:04 Matt_King: I don't know if we can have a useful discussion of the keyboard proposal. We could wait for code from cbellew. I do have a proposal here, though. 18:26:34 Matt_King: This came out of TPAC discussions last year, where we're talking about "aria-actions" being set to null (or '") in certain circumstances 18:27:02 Matt_King: The screen reader would know that it has actions but wouldn't be able to figure out what the actions are until the element receives focus 18:27:25 Matt_King: This is specifically what Aaron was hoping to do 18:27:41 Matt_King: In the aria-actions specification, the empty string is supposed to have meaning 18:27:53 Matt_King: That allows you to use "display: none" for the buttons 18:28:03 cbellew: Ah, so you aren't referencing IDs which don't exist 18:28:21 Matt_King: Exactly. Or so we don't have to use some weird mechanism of making them not visible 18:29:19 cbellew: are there standard icons or icon libraries? Or should I just choose my own? 18:29:36 Matt_King: We don't have a standard set. We have some other examples which have icons which might be similar 18:29:48 Matt_King: Here we want move up, move down, favorite, and delete... 18:30:04 Matt_King: We probably have SVGs already in the repository that might represent most of those things... 18:30:21 cbellew: I've been looking but haven't seen anything. I'll keep searching 18:30:34 siri: Can you add a pattern that has disabled actions? 18:30:42 Matt_King: Well, in this case, you would not show disabled actions 18:31:30 Matt_King: But if the item is the first in the list, you can't move it up. Likewise, if it's the last item in the list, you can't move it down. But I'm assuming we wouldn't display those actions as disabled--that we would simply not display them at all 18:34:20 Topic: Issue 3371: Potential bug or editorial issue in navigation tree example related to aria-selected 18:34:27 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3371 18:35:09 Matt_King: In the navigation tree view, we aren't using "Selected" at all. We're using aria-current = page 18:35:47 Matt_King: I re-read the spec, and aria-selected is supported for tree items. It's not required. There is spec language around whether or not the browser should do automatic selection, and I think in this case, some browsers might choose to do automatic selection 18:35:59 Matt_King: ...because that meets the requirements for single-select which are in the spec 18:36:38 Matt_King: And then I read our language in the pattern. There, when we talk about "aria-selected" and "checked", we say how to mark it up if it is selected. But there isn't any language in the pattern that says whether there needs to be a selection 18:37:04 Matt_King: But then when you look at this navigation tree view example, we don't say very much about this choice 18:37:45 Matt_King: There is some language--under "Accessibility Features" we have a section named "Focus Movement after content load" and that's where we talk about the use of "aria-current" 18:38:04 Matt_King: But we don't talk about "aria-selected" anywhere. I don't know if that's a miss, here, but it clearly tripped up this person 18:38:10 Matt_King: So we could add some language. 18:38:40 Matt_King: I don't think it's a bug--I don't think we need to specify aria-selected, but I wonder whether we should say why we are not doing so 18:39:04 https://w3c.github.io/aria/#aria-selected 18:39:19 Jem: So would you like to update the pattern regarding aria-selected? 18:39:36 Matt_King: We could just explain how aria-selected is not required, just as a comment on this issue, and then close this issue 18:40:09 Matt_King: We could say something about not using aria-selected here on this example page. I'm not sure about that. 18:40:58 Matt_King: I don't think we want to update the pattern, though. We use this in aria-breadcrumb, but everywhere else, it's not part of the pattern--its just something you can 18:41:32 Jem: I think this person is just looking for guidance on aria-selected. I think there will be others who will ask the same question 18:41:46 Jem: So I vote for adding some language about aria-selected here in the example 18:42:16 Matt_King: Maybe what we're really doing is using aria-current in lieu of aria-selected 18:42:43 Jem: Maybe we add it to the table. We could add a note to the row for aria-current 18:43:04 Matt_King: We could add a note in the "Accessibility features", too, where we talk about aria-current. Maybe the same note could go in both places 18:43:24 Jem: I remember when I first started learning about ARIA, I was always looking for all the "aria-selected" attributes 18:44:46 Matt_King: I guess a note would say something like, "aria-current is used in lieu of aria-selected because it more clearly conveys the state of the tree, and the pattern and specification do not require that there be a selected element" 18:44:51 Jem: Great! 18:44:58 https://w3c.github.io/aria/#aria-current:~:text=In%20some%20use,delete%22%20and%20%22move.%22 18:45:08 Adam_Page: For what it's worth, I just reviewed the spec for aria-current and found some prose to this effect 18:45:20 Matt_King: I didn't think to check that! 18:45:26 Matt_King: I may have written that 18:45:39 Adam_Page: I think maybe you did. It sounds a lot like the text you just proposed 18:45:47 Matt_King: Maybe we can re-use that language 18:46:11 Matt_King: Having some clear messaging that helps illuminate the spec (especially the spec for aria-current) makes this a more positive change 18:46:38 Matt_King: Okay. We can mark this issue as an editorial enhancement. I will do that, now. 18:46:43 Jem has joined #aria-apg 18:47:04 present+ 18:47:11 Adam_Page: This also feels like a "good first issue" for folks who might be new to the APG or who are looking for an easy win 18:47:13 rrsagent, make minutes 18:47:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/07-aria-apg-minutes.html Jem 18:47:21 Matt_King: Yes, especially if we propose a draft wording in the issue 18:47:24 https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.3/#aria-current 18:48:09 Siri: In the note for aria-current, why does it say "aria-selected=true indicates [...]" 18:48:18 Matt_King: Does that note suggest that we should be using aria-selected? 18:48:27 [Jem reads the note] 18:49:19 "In some use cases for widgets that support aria-selected, current and selected can have different meanings and can both be used within the same set of elements. For example, aria-current="page" can be used in a navigation tree to indicate which page is currently displayed, while aria-selected="true" indicates which page will be displayed if the user activates the treeitem. Furthermore, the same tree can support operating on one or mo 18:49:19 re selected pages (treeitems) by way of a context menu containing options such as "delete" and "move." 18:49:52 Matt_King: In a single-select tree, often the item that is focused is true. It's not necessary for the author to specify aria-selected=true because the browser will do that automatically 18:50:04 Matt_King: You sometimes will see aria-selected set even though it wasn't set by the code 18:50:17 Matt_King: That's the page which will become current when the item is activated 18:51:02 Matt_King: It could also be the case that that navigation tree allows you to do things (like moving things up and down), aria-selected tells you which you will be operating on, while aria-current tells you which is displayed. You may be operating on a tree which is not displayed 18:51:31 Siri: aria-selected=true might confuse me because I would only use aria-selected or aria-current, not both 18:51:38 Adam_Page: I had no idea about this browser behavior! 18:52:23 Matt_King: Sarah and I worked on the user-agent language for this (for tree item, grid cell, option, and maybe more). We had the same language in different parts of the spec so that browsers know what they can do and when they're allowed to do it 18:52:37 Matt_King: The browser cannot do this if it's a multiple selection or if the author used aria-checked 18:52:57 Matt_King: Anyway, there's a little bit of user-agent code that's in there that allows you to do some things automatically 18:53:06 Matt_King: Okay, I've labeled the issue, so we're done with this 18:53:26 topic: Issue 3370: How to manage focus for disable tabs 18:53:31 github: 18:53:35 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/3370 18:53:39 Matt_King: Let's save this for next week 18:53:49 topic: Issue 2735: Should APG CI include running regression on macOS? 18:53:56 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2735 18:54:21 Matt_King: howard-e points out that if we proceed with the open pull request for this, there would be other failures 18:54:43 Matt_King: If people are going to run this locally, it should match CI. If they don't match, then that defeats the purpose of running locally 18:54:54 howard-e: That's the value-add. That, and increased robustness 18:55:42 Matt_King: Ah, I see--you said that if you ran it with macOS in CI, it created issues that you didn't observe locally 18:55:59 howard-e: It looks like my final question here was whether we wanted to commit the time to figure out what's happening there 18:56:19 howard-e: I also wonder if we've seen other folks running into issues on their Macs 18:56:44 Matt_King: I think it would be more robust if the CI also ran Mac, but that adds more complexity 18:57:13 Matt_King: If this could turn into a rabbit hole, I don't mind leaving this open for another day (and perhaps another contributor with more experience) 18:57:46 howard-e: I could take the next step--I could at least check in on the updates that have happened since we last discussed this, and I could share the result of that research 18:57:50 Matt_King: That sounds good 18:57:59 Matt_King: Do the folks here develop on Mac? 18:58:03 Adam_Page: I do 18:58:05 arigilmore: I do 18:58:21 cbellew: I mostly develop on macOS, but I also develop in Windows 18:58:33 Adam_Page: I test in Windows, but I develop in macOS exclusively 18:58:55 Jem: I just assigned howard-e to this issue and added Adam_Page and arigilmore as reviewers 18:59:08 Jem: I think we're done. We'll see you all next Tuesday! 18:59:39 Zakim, end the meeting 18:59:39 As of this point the attendees have been Adam_Page, Matt_King, jugglinmike, arigilmore, howard-e, Daniel, jem, Siri, cbellew 18:59:42 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 18:59:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/07-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim 18:59:49 I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:59:50 Zakim has left #aria-apg 19:00:08 RRSAgent, leave 19:00:08 I see no action items