16:59:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:59:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-aria-irc
16:59:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:59:22 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA WG
16:59:26 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #aria
16:59:34 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
16:59:34 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
16:59:35 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5a155237-d896-464b-9c5f-6dd1654293ae/20251016T130000/
16:59:35 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:59:35 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2025-10-09+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues
16:59:35 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://tinyurl.com/3ahh3p39
16:59:38 <agendabot> agenda+ -> WPT Open PRs https://bit.ly/wpt_a11y
16:59:40 <agendabot> agenda+ -> TPAC planning https://tinyurl.com/ariaf2fcandidate
16:59:43 <agendabot> agenda+ -> CSS: handing the a11y of anchor positioning https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/545
16:59:46 <agendabot> agenda+ -> feat: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805
16:59:49 <agendabot> agenda+ -> ARIA IDL updates: enumerated attribute conversions, new "enumerated" wai-aria type, IDL examples https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2484
17:00:35 <spectranaut_> present+
17:01:12 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
17:01:17 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria
17:02:01 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #aria
17:02:10 <Francis_Storr> present+
17:02:22 <katez> katez has joined #aria
17:02:23 <pkra> present+
17:02:31 <katez> present+
17:02:39 <Adam_Page> present+
17:03:27 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #aria
17:03:34 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:03:34 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
17:03:38 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:03:38 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2025-10-09+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:03:57 <Adam_Page> jamesn: it’s triage week, sharing window...
17:04:23 <Adam_Page> ... aria#2657
17:04:27 <Adam_Page> ... editorial, fix links and markup
17:04:33 <Adam_Page> ... don’t need to talk about
17:04:40 <Adam_Page> Daniel: can discuss offline
17:05:10 <Adam_Page> jamesn: also don’t need to discuss aria#2655 and the next one
17:05:28 <Adam_Page> jcraig: aria#2650 is a F2F candidate
17:05:28 <Adam_Page> ... talked about next week
17:05:39 <Adam_Page> ... I addressed questions from Rahim and Matt
17:05:48 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #aria
17:05:51 <Adam_Page> ... keithamus expressed interest in looking into this
17:05:52 <chrishtr> q+
17:05:55 <filippo-zorzi> present+
17:05:57 <Adam_Page> ... chrishtr took an action to follow up
17:06:09 <Adam_Page> ... one other suggestion I’ll add is the related WPT tests are both tentative
17:06:21 <Adam_Page> ... but I’ll move them to non-tentative to encourage implementations
17:06:32 <Adam_Page> jamesn: is there anything we need to do in triage? Should we agenda it?
17:06:56 <Adam_Page> jcraig: that was full scope of what I wanted to share, so no need to agenda unless people want to follow up
17:06:59 <Adam_Page> jamesn: I’ll agenda it
17:07:29 <jamesn> ack chrishtr
17:07:38 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: I brought Lucas with me, he just joined the WG
17:07:46 <cyns> cyns has joined #aria
17:07:57 <Adam_Page> Lucas: I’m helping with a11y stuff on Blink as well as on browser side
17:08:10 <Adam_Page> ... my role isn’t fully clear yet, but for this quarter and next, I’ll be implementing some of this
17:08:27 <Adam_Page> ... for name from, I just spoke with MS, and I understand we need one extra implementation
17:08:30 <Adam_Page> ... so I will create the bug on our side
17:08:47 <Adam_Page> ... the MS folks told me they might give it a stab, but if not, I can do it in Q1
17:09:07 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: that will enable me to merge
17:09:34 <chrishtr> Full name: Lucas Radaelli
17:09:36 <Adam_Page> jamesn: let’s do intros...
17:11:08 <jcraig> present+
17:14:40 <Adam_Page> Lucas: thanks, all — nice to meet you
17:15:06 <Adam_Page> zakim. next item
17:15:21 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:15:21 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New Issue Triage https://tinyurl.com/3ahh3p39 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:15:38 <lola> lola has joined #aria
17:15:44 <lola> present+
17:16:06 <Adam_Page> jamesn: aria#2656
17:16:16 <Adam_Page> ... add `getComputedAria` to window
17:16:27 <Adam_Page> jcraig: it seems the commenter is unaware of the 2 parallel paths that we’re working on
17:16:37 <Adam_Page> ... I’ll comment on the issue
17:16:47 <Adam_Page> ... may be true for the second issue
17:16:55 <Adam_Page> jamesn: I’ll assign it to you
17:17:17 <Adam_Page> ... I fear it’s something that won’t be easily available
17:17:34 <Adam_Page> jcraig: we had marked this out of scope for privacy
17:17:34 <Adam_Page> ... so I’ll comment on that
17:17:36 <Adam_Page> jamesn: aria#2655
17:17:42 <Adam_Page> jcraig: this one is also out of scope
17:17:45 <Adam_Page> ... I’ll add a comment to this too
17:17:50 <Adam_Page> jamesn: aria#2653
17:18:14 <Adam_Page> ... should aria-live default be undefined instead of off
17:18:20 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I’d suggest we assign this to Rahim
17:18:35 <Adam_Page> ... and I initially agree with Joannie on this
17:18:41 <Adam_Page> ... but Rahim may know about complexities
17:19:20 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:19:20 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://bit.ly/wpt_a11y -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:19:46 <Adam_Page> jcraig: wpt#55200 is just metadata changes
17:19:49 <Adam_Page> ... no need to discuss
17:19:57 <Adam_Page> ... wpt#53733
17:20:02 <Adam_Page> ... spectranaut_, I added review comments
17:20:08 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: thanks, I’ll review
17:20:21 <Adam_Page> jcraig: other reviewers, please block out time — it’s a biggie
17:20:29 <Adam_Page> ... no other updates
17:20:33 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:20:33 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> TPAC planning https://tinyurl.com/ariaf2fcandidate -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:20:48 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we have a number of F2F candidates on the agenda
17:21:04 <Adam_Page> ... spectranaut_ and I plan to make a first draft tomorrow
17:21:10 <Adam_Page> ... so last call for candidates, y’all
17:21:40 <Adam_Page> ... we can still fit in topics later, but by tomorrow would be great
17:21:52 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I have a suggestion
17:22:01 <Adam_Page> ... we could have a `F2F miscellaneous` tag
17:22:15 <Adam_Page> ... for bringing up older/smaller issues to talk through quickly in sequence
17:22:24 <Adam_Page> ... direct touch, for example
17:22:33 <Adam_Page> ... a bunch of old issues that fell by the wayside
17:22:41 <Adam_Page> jamesn: not a bad idea
17:23:44 <Adam_Page> ... I’ll create another label for this
17:24:29 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:24:29 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- -> CSS: handing the a11y of anchor positioning https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/545 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:26:24 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: I took an action item for this issue
17:26:41 <Adam_Page> ... I did follow up with Mason
17:26:49 <Adam_Page> ... who led the effort to add the anchor positioning feature
17:27:20 <Adam_Page> ... he said the suggestions in the issue from Scott and Sarah are worth pursuing
17:27:26 <Daniel> present+
17:27:41 <Adam_Page> jcraig: Tyler on Webkit was looking into this
17:27:58 <Adam_Page> ... considering `visibility: hidden`
17:28:06 <Adam_Page> ... we may need to consider how things are hidden from the a11y tree
17:28:25 <jcraig> WebKit are considering this implementation detail wrt accessibility. We may need to tweak anywhere we're checking RenderStyle::usedVisibility to exclude cases where the thing is only visibility:hidden because of position-visibility.
17:28:30 <Adam_Page> keithamus: what’s the tl;dr for actually implementing accessible relations?
17:28:34 <Adam_Page> ... is it a details relation?
17:28:39 <Adam_Page> jcraig: undecided, I think
17:29:20 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: it’s on the agenda because anchor positioning is about to be interoperable across browsers, so we need to make sure it’s accessible
17:29:33 <Adam_Page> ... to answer keithamus’s question, it’s basically to follow what popover has already done
17:29:35 <Adam_Page> ... maybe with specific ARIA attributes
17:29:56 <Adam_Page> keithamus: I think that’s fine, but are we to read the association from the defined anchor in CSS?
17:30:10 <Adam_Page> ... it would be like a minimum/default details association?
17:30:34 <Adam_Page> ... I assume that we’ll create the association when an explicit anchor reference has been created
17:30:36 <Adam_Page> ... which seems fine
17:30:37 <Adam_Page> ... but
17:30:55 <Adam_Page> ... but because popover already does this, there’s nothing to do?
17:31:06 <Adam_Page> ... would this conflict? Or would popover override?
17:31:18 <Adam_Page> ... because you can have a different CSS-defined anchor competing with popover
17:31:35 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: yes, that’s a common pairing — so one would need to win
17:31:48 <Adam_Page> keithamus: this will also be an issue with interestfor
17:31:58 <Adam_Page> ... because you’d have the combination of all of these
17:32:03 <Adam_Page> ... that may be less obvious
17:32:12 <Adam_Page> ... because I can imagine an explicit ARIA attribute should always win over implicit
17:32:29 <Adam_Page> ... but popover and commandfor association would probably also win
17:32:37 <Adam_Page> ... but they all set up the same details relation, I guess?
17:32:52 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: has the intersection between command and interestfor already been discussed
17:32:59 <Adam_Page> keithamus: no
17:33:14 <Adam_Page> ... commandfor should always win over popover, I think — but now need to check Firefox codebase
17:33:33 <Adam_Page> ... there’s a lot of work that needs to be done here to tease this apart
17:33:41 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: thanks for agenda’ing this pkra
17:34:18 <Adam_Page> keithamus: there is an explicit place in each of the browsers where there’s a known anchor
17:34:30 <Adam_Page> ... and at that time, we just need to specify that it should be an aria-details relationship
17:34:37 <Adam_Page> ... but one of the heuristics that we had for popover
17:34:47 <Adam_Page> ... is that it is only aria-details when it *needs* to be
17:34:52 <Adam_Page> ... to avoid redundant associations
17:34:58 <Adam_Page> ... but with anchor positioning, that logic is not as evident
17:35:10 <Adam_Page> ... because we’re talking about visual/spatial relationships
17:35:38 <Adam_Page> ... but if everyone is going to pair anchor positioning with popover, then it won’t be so obvious
17:35:43 <Adam_Page> ... is this even the right thing to do?
17:35:50 <jamesn> agenda?
17:36:03 <Adam_Page> jcraig: neither of the HTML-AAM editors are here, and it’d be good for them to be involved
17:36:09 <Adam_Page> ... this could be a good F2F candidate
17:36:12 <Adam_Page> jamesn: I agree
17:36:20 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: other reps will also be at TPAC, so I agree too
17:36:53 <Adam_Page> jcraig: if we schedule it for morning, we might be able to accommodate people not attending in person
17:37:02 <Adam_Page> jamesn: agree this should be F2F — who best to prep?
17:37:04 <Adam_Page> keithamus: I will
17:37:15 <Adam_Page> Lucas: before we move on
17:37:16 <Siri> Siri has joined #aria
17:37:21 <Adam_Page> ... I was implementing aria-details for interestfor
17:38:01 <Adam_Page> ... there seems to be a timing window with when the details relationship is created
17:38:10 <Adam_Page> ... and in my debugging, I’m not seeing screen readers convey that
17:38:26 <Adam_Page> jcraig: this is a perennial problem
17:38:31 <Adam_Page> ... we’ll need to debug individually
17:38:40 <Adam_Page> ... my suspicion is that SRs haven’t implemented yet
17:38:55 <Adam_Page> ... some of these implementation chains go very slowly, sometimes years
17:39:07 <Adam_Page> Lucas: for future reference, where’s a good forum for me to ask about this?
17:39:48 <Adam_Page> keithamus: the 1-second delay you mentioned...
17:39:55 <Adam_Page> ... is that because it follows the interestfor delay timing?
17:40:01 <Adam_Page> Lucas: yes
17:40:12 <Adam_Page> keithamus: should it? Shouldn’t it be immediate?
17:40:29 <Adam_Page> jcraig: yes, we should do it immediately and let the AT decide when to present
17:40:45 <jamesn> q+
17:41:07 <Adam_Page> Lucas: my understanding was that if you relate it immediately, the target may not actually exist in the DOM yet
17:41:09 <jamesn> ack me
17:41:18 <Adam_Page> jamesn: in core-aam, we have state and prop change events
17:41:34 <Adam_Page> ... aria-details doesn’t currently have an event when it changes
17:41:34 <Adam_Page> ... is that a problem for this?
17:41:45 <Adam_Page> ... do we need to add a prop change event?
17:42:05 <Adam_Page> Lucas: I don‘t have an opinion yet, but I might next week
17:42:23 <Adam_Page> jamesn: it seems like this is just missing from the spec
17:42:32 <Adam_Page> ... can we reuse EVENT_OBJECT_DESCRIPTIONCHANGE?
17:42:36 <Adam_Page> ... rather than invent a new one?
17:42:43 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: that would be useful
17:42:52 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I’d want to discuss with other engineers
17:42:59 <Adam_Page> jamesn: if we’re talking about using details, that is missing from the spec
17:43:08 <Adam_Page> ... maybe people are working around this because they noticed it‘s missing
17:43:11 <Adam_Page> ... we have to add that
17:43:18 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: someone should make an issue to describe this need
17:43:34 <Adam_Page> jamesn: yes, any volunteers?
17:43:34 <Adam_Page> Lucas: it was hard to pinpoint where the fault was
17:43:53 <Adam_Page> ... after some time, if you have the element focused, it receives some ARIA details relationship
17:43:57 <Adam_Page> ... the name isn’t changing
17:44:05 <Adam_Page> ... none of the ATs read the name of the element again
17:44:09 <Adam_Page> ... all AT would say “has details”
17:44:31 <Adam_Page> jamesn: yes, some props are meant to send a change event
17:44:50 <jamesn> agenda?
17:44:58 <Adam_Page> jcraig: to help further your debugging, Lucas, with the xcode a11y inspector, you have to attach to the specific process
17:45:08 <Adam_Page> ... since most browsers are multi-process tab, you have to attach to the tab
17:45:20 <Adam_Page> ... and then you can sub-filter down
17:45:34 <Adam_Page> ... at least you can confirm that the event is making it out of the browser to the platform
17:45:39 <Adam_Page> ... and determine whether it’s being dropped by the AT
17:45:41 <Adam_Page> ... in macOS
17:45:51 <Adam_Page> ... but not sure about Windows/Linux
17:46:00 <Adam_Page> keithamus: I’m still hung up at relating this after a delay
17:46:31 <Adam_Page> ... the node can be there in the DOM and a11y tree; it should skip the visibility checks
17:46:58 <Adam_Page> ... I don’t know what the value would be to tell an AT user that there’s a relation *later than necessary*
17:47:21 <Adam_Page> jcraig: ATs often receive spurious notifications
17:47:46 <Adam_Page> Lucas: we can argue for the interestfor case to remove the delay
17:47:51 <Adam_Page> ... but I think the problem exists regardless
17:48:15 <Adam_Page> ... someone focused on an element could choose to create a details relationship and you wouldn’t be notified
17:48:18 <Adam_Page> keithamus: I agree with that
17:48:32 <Adam_Page> ... it sounds like this came up because of the delay in visibility of the interestfor popover
17:48:41 <Adam_Page> ... and that sounds like we could improve the UX just for the interestfor case
17:48:51 <Adam_Page> ... but I certainly agree that we need to solve for the details event
17:49:06 <Adam_Page> Lucas: I wrote a doc for Mason and will continue working on this
17:49:14 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: thanks for the feedback, keithamus
17:49:34 <Adam_Page> jcraig: who will file this issue?
17:49:34 <Adam_Page> chrishtr: I will
17:49:34 <Adam_Page> ... and I’ll tag Lucas
17:49:38 <Adam_Page> jamesn: anything else?
17:49:42 <jamesn> agenda?
17:49:45 <Adam_Page> ... I think we’ll just skip the last 2 things on the agenda
17:49:56 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
17:49:56 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- -> feat: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:50:10 <jcraig> s/jcraig: who will file /jamesn: who will file /
17:50:26 <Adam_Page> Lucas: my understanding is that implementation was started last year on Chrome
17:50:34 <Adam_Page> ... but there are still 4 points that need to be figured out
17:50:35 <jcraig> s/want to discuss with other engineers/want to discuss with other VoiceOver and WebKit engineers/
17:50:39 <Adam_Page> ... I created a list of those 4 bugs
17:50:42 <Adam_Page> ... that are actionable
17:51:02 <Adam_Page> ... I wrote this doc because MS was interested in picking up the work
17:51:09 <Adam_Page> ... so there’s been a bit of movement last week
17:51:15 <Adam_Page> ... the document is internal
17:51:27 <chrishtr> filed https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/592
17:51:34 <Adam_Page> ... we do have one public issue filed for discussion
17:51:36 <Adam_Page> ... which I think will be coming up soon
17:51:45 <Adam_Page> ... the other 3 are actionable and just internal implementation
17:51:53 <Adam_Page> ... would expect the discussion to start again soon
17:51:55 <jcraig> s/implementation chains go very slowly/implementation chains go very slowly (web feature proposal, aam change, ua implementation, api change, downstream AT change)/
17:51:56 <Adam_Page> jamesn: great news
17:52:15 <Adam_Page> ... Jamie did a thorough review
17:52:20 <Adam_Page> ... and the PR needs some care to proceed
17:52:49 <Adam_Page> Matt: I added some comments to the issue
17:53:01 <Adam_Page> ... Brett @ Vispero and I had some concerns
17:53:07 <Adam_Page> ... based on experience trying to get this to work with JAWS
17:53:19 <Adam_Page> ... trying to get another listbox example added to the APG
17:53:34 <Adam_Page> ... to help more clearly illustrate the concern
17:53:55 <Adam_Page> ... it comes down to the requirement that the SR actually execute a click on the target of the actions
17:54:01 <Adam_Page> ... create an actual click event
17:54:11 <Adam_Page> ... what we’re discovering is that it causes focus
17:54:30 <Adam_Page> ... and then if focus moves from the referencing el to the referenced el, then we’ve destroyed the utility of actions
17:54:37 <Adam_Page> ... since the whole point is to keep a SR focused on the referencing el
17:54:44 <Adam_Page> ... while you perform these actions
17:54:49 <Adam_Page> ... so wondering how we can address that
17:54:58 <Adam_Page> ... the click event had to do with protecting privacy
17:54:58 <jamesn> q+
17:55:05 <Adam_Page> ... but it’s getting in the way of the feature working in practice
17:55:14 <Adam_Page> jamesn: some of the use cases want focus to stay, but not all
17:55:34 <Adam_Page> ... e.g.. moving focus to a dialog
17:55:40 <Adam_Page> ... but I do appreciate there are many use cases where it would be a big issue
17:55:47 <Adam_Page> ... even the destructive ones, then focus gets lost
17:56:00 <jcraig> q+
17:56:07 <jcraig> ack jamesn
17:56:10 <jamesn> ack me
17:56:16 <Adam_Page> Matt: how would we ever help people figure that out
17:56:25 <Adam_Page> ... does the feature still have value with those limitations
17:56:34 <jamesn> ack jcr
17:56:40 <Adam_Page> jamesn: yes IMO, because there are use cases that can allow focus to move
17:56:47 <Adam_Page> jcraig: consider an example
17:56:49 <Adam_Page> ... Gmail
17:57:03 <Adam_Page> ... Gmail has these rows for messages, and if you hover it shows actions
17:57:10 <Adam_Page> ... when you focus the row, these actions would become visible
17:57:12 <front-endian-jane> front-endian-jane has joined #aria
17:57:15 <front-endian-jane> present+
17:57:15 <Adam_Page> ... and could take a synthesized click
17:57:34 <Adam_Page> ... in that case, the focus does not change
17:57:34 <Adam_Page> ... these are secondary/alternative paths to do the same action
17:57:34 <Adam_Page> ... similar to keyboard shortcut
17:57:37 <Adam_Page> ... R for reply, etc.
17:57:50 <front-endian-jane> q+
17:57:57 <Adam_Page> ... and so the goal of this is to give AT users the same shortcut
17:58:11 <Adam_Page> ... and Gmail would be on the hook for making sure that focus doesn’t change
17:58:34 <Adam_Page> ... there are all these examples where it would work as intended without a change to focus
17:58:58 <Adam_Page> ... if you have actionable elements and they need to be focused because that’s the only way you would interact with them with a keyboard
17:59:01 <jamesn> q?
17:59:04 <Adam_Page> ... then they may not be appropriate use cases for this feature
17:59:12 <Adam_Page> Matt: your Gmail example is perfect
17:59:34 <Adam_Page> ... because the SR has to click the star, for example, to important it
17:59:38 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I don‘t fully agree
17:59:50 <Adam_Page> Matt: the referencing element has to point to the target, according to the spec
18:00:13 <Adam_Page> jcraig: the details of the spec don’t require the SR to click
18:00:24 <Adam_Page> ... what matters it that the click event is synthesized as far as the author is concerned
18:01:22 <jamesn> zakim, end meeting
18:01:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been spectranaut_, Francis_Storr, pkra, katez, Adam_Page, giacomo-petri, filippo-zorzi, jcraig, lola, Daniel, front-endian-jane
18:01:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
18:01:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-aria-minutes.html Zakim
18:01:34 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jamesn; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:01:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria
19:00:53 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria
21:58:21 <ChrisCuellar> ChrisCuellar has joined #aria