Meeting minutes
"Using ARIA" status https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2708
"look into SVG2's multiple desc/title (with differing lang)" https://github.com/w3c/svg-aam/issues/40 agendabot]
pkra: I found an issue on the SVG tracker and it felt like we should maybe say something about it.
mark: saw something similar for CSS, whether or not delivered by XHTML or HTML.
… as far as I can say there's no spec saying how AT computes language.
… at best, found some browser code like "doing this to be compatible with IE11"
cyns: I wonder how this would work in bilingual situations.
jamesn: does this have an actual impact? Or do we leave it as rendered.
pkra: agreed. I think right now svg-aam should match reality. For the editors context, it may be interesting to have prior work if we ever want to do something like this.
mark: I'll file an issue with html-aam on the other issue.
jamesn: if german is voiced french, is that an AT bug?
mark: not really, it's consistent behavior depending on the situation.
… but in html it's not a huge problem. It only happens in xhtml mime type.
… but in svg it's more complicated since it's XML in HTML
… so with the two attributes, the html and svg would calculate things differently.
cyns: can you add a comment on the issue, too?
daniel: there's so much to say about AT voicing things. I think most times users override things so that it doesn't change automatically.
cyns: what's the experience with bilingual pages?
daniel: I change manually. IT's just a few keystrokes on desktop.
<Daniel> w3c/
"Using ARIA" status https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2708
"Editorial: Improve Netlify preview" https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2703
Daniel: this edits the top card with links to the changed specs within the preview
… the only problem is that this can't be tested well from a fork.
… maybe we can merge this and go from there.
spectranaut_: looks great!
… can we remove the old preview bot?
Daniel: I wanted to wait to see that it works as desired.
… then I would remove it.
pkra: great. Let's review?
spectranaut_: modulo reverting the test changes to AAMs
Daniel: yes.
In-person issue cleanup session
spectranaut_: we were talking about having a Bay area meetup to clean up issue. So myself, James, Rahim, maybe Bryan, James C?
Rahim_: yes, that sounds great.
spectranaut_: let's figure out a meeting place.
Rahim_: I'll organize date/time.
"Using ARIA" status https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2708
pkra: I filed this because I remembered the older issue and it didn't seem like the Using ARIA document had been addressed.
… now there's been a few comments on the issue though.
Daniel: right. Matt left a comment on how APG had meant to integrate it. But Steven and Sara might be taking it over.
pkra: I was wondering if ARIA WG want to take it up. It seems like a prominent document - rules of aria etc. I think it would be worthwhile to keep it.
jemma: I think the new website for APG is the good place going forward. We update it monthly.
thanks, spectranaut_
matt: it seems people have come up with different ideas. We discussed it back in 2021 but never had enough people to get it in there.
cyns: should the document continue to exist? Or redirect to APG?
matt: I would move it to APG and redirect there.
Daniel: there are some differences in phrasing. Some are subtle.
matt: I think the nature of the prose might be a significant difference. APG avoids normative sounding language
jemma: I'd second Matt's idea. It would be good to have a single place.
matt: right. It's not just copy-into-place. There are multiple topics in there, some are covered or closely related to APG.
… and there are places in APG referencing Using ARIA, too.
Daniel: if we chose to retire this, what would be a good approach?
pkra: I don't have strong feelings. Mostly, that it doesn't say 2021 anymore.
scotto: I would suggest to get Steve involved to see what plans he has. A while back I spoke to him about it, also in part html-aria (which used to be one document).
matt: agreed. We got a request way back when if ARIA could take the document and we said we would integrate into APG.
… we used to have a topic by topic redirect for a long time.
… maybe 35 URLs.
… so people could find things in the new APG.
jemma: what are the next steps?
Daniel: I'll follow up directly.
jamesn: I don't have a strong opinion. Parts are outdated and some things I find difficult. It's ultimately not normative but developer advice.
jemma: do you think APG would be a good place?
jamesn: if the owners think so, yes.
matt: a comment on the older issue, they said they wanted to update the document.
scotto: I agree with jamesn. The document is important. The rules are widely used and often misunderstood.
matt: we use a rephrasing of Rule 1 on every APG page.