Meeting minutes
Agenda check-in
<Jem> https://
publication planning
Matt_King: There is a link to the milestone in the agenda. The target is to get the PRs in the milestone ready by the 16th so they can be published on the 17th
Matt_King: one is aspirational - there are 5 in total
Matt_King: #2991 is the aspirational one
#3213 - there are 3 requested reviews but I think this is done but the reviewers haven't posted their reviews yet
Adam_Page: I have reviewed this a few times at different steps
Matt_King: looking for a thumbs up
arigilmore: I can too
arigilmore: don't have an android device to test
Adam_Page: I do have one so can do that
Matt_King: #3374 is waiting on me
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: #3386 going to be looking for some reviewers next week
Matt_King: need to ensure the 17th works for publication. Daniel was checking for w3c team availability to publish
2026 Meeting time and schedule
Matt_King: do we want to keep the time? or should we run a poll
Adam_Page: I'd like to see a poll as I have collisions at this time
CurtBellew: earlier would be better for me
<Adam_Page> +1 to bi-weekly
Matt_King: weekly vs bi-weekly - was thinking how nice it would be to have APG and ARIA-AT both bi-weekly
<Jem> +1
Matt_King: there have been times when weekly meetings were very helpful - but other times when an off week would have worked very well
<CurtBellew> +1
Matt_King: trying to do things to keep the examples current - we have prioritized based on demand. All subject to change based on the group membership.
<Adam_Page> +1 to a dedicated Slack channel
<discussion of where to have async chat - slack vs other places>
going to use the #aria-apg channel on w3c slack servers
will go bi-weekly
poll on meeting time
Issue 3193: listbox example with aria-actions
CurtBellew: should be able to review this week
Matt_King: because this is an experimental example we may not need to be as strict
Guidance on focusability of disabled controls
Matt_King: general agreement that the spirit is good but needs some additional clarification.
Matt_King: the spirit was "it depends"
Matt_King: and that wasn't coming through clearly enough in how it was written and it sounded more prescriptive than intended
Adam_Page: I've increasingly avoided disabling elements - as it is a weird design decision that things can be made partially perceivable to some users
Adam_Page: found a few places where there is perhaps more strong guidance than intended
w3c/
Adam_Page: no suggestions but just called them out in the above comment
Adam_Page: would be happy to start a PR and offer some suggestions
<jongund> Got to go early today.
Adam_Page: will push a PR
Issue 3373: "Read this first" uses client-side JavaScript
Matt_King: there is a path forward - if someone can read the issue and discern the path in terms of a PR - then that would be great
Matt_King: this is not near the top of my priority list - and Daniel is not here so don't know where it fits on w3c side
Jem: my concern about no Boucoup is many infra issues we'll have to deal with
Jem: need to think about how we will maintain these things
Matt_King: will add P2