17:32:28 RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg 17:32:33 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/18-aria-apg-irc 17:32:33 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:32:34 Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force 17:32:38 Siri has joined #aria-apg 17:32:41 present+ jugglinmike 17:32:43 scribe+ jugglinmike 17:32:45 present+ Siri 17:32:46 present+ 17:32:53 present+ Adam_Page 17:32:57 jongund has joined #aria-apg 17:33:01 present+ jongund 17:34:09 present+ 17:34:29 topic: Setup and Review Agenda 17:34:31 https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/February-18%2C-2026-Agenda 17:34:49 https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/February-18%2C-2026-Agenda 17:35:08 Jem_: Next meeting: March 4 17:35:18 Jem_: I will not be present at the next meeting 17:36:01 Jem_: Any requests for change to agenda? 17:36:31 jongund: Can we set aside some time to review color contrast? 17:36:36 present+ Matt_King 17:36:47 Matt_King: Sure. Not during this meeting, though 17:36:54 topic: Publication planning 17:36:57 Jem_: It's ready! 17:37:09 Matt_King: I saw that Remy added a lot of stuff to the branch that are not content changes 17:37:16 https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/milestone/40 17:37:18 Matt_King: I added a summary of the content changes 17:37:34 Matt_King: and I did a preview to make sure that those content changes are present 17:37:59 https://github.com/w3c/wai-aria-practices/pull/452 17:37:59 Matt_King: There are 15 commits. Two are content, and everything else is the stuff that Remy did 17:38:21 Daniel: We're taking over; we just weren't sure of how things were in the past, but now we know 17:38:39 Daniel: Now that we're carrying over the content changes, we're doing our changes along with the content changes 17:38:57 Daniel: We'll be changing our process moving forward to keep these things separate in the future 17:39:07 s/Remy/Remi/g 17:40:58 Matt_King: Great. I think it's ready to go 17:41:16 Daniel: We'll publish what we have. What about the other things in the milestone? 17:41:24 Matt_King: I'll move those to a new milestone 17:41:48 Topic: PR 3412: Change dialog title heading elements from H2 to H1 17:41:59 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3412 17:42:11 Matt_King: I took a quick look at this but didn't submit a review 17:42:29 Matt_King: I think we need someone to review this visually to determine whether or not we need to also make CSS changes 17:42:31 Jem_: I can do that 17:43:13 Matt_King: This impacts the headings inside the dialogs 17:43:31 Matt_King: e.g. the dialog for "Add Delivery Address" 17:43:44 Matt_King has joined #aria-apg 17:43:53 Siri: Also "Verification Result" 17:44:19 Matt_King: And one with a heading that reads "End of the Road" 17:44:38 Jem_: I checked with the tag inspector and it is indeed H1 17:45:01 Matt_King: If I were to merge this today, do we want to add it to the release we've already prepared? 17:45:05 Daniel: I'm fine with that 17:45:37 Matt_King: I'll take another look at the actual diff before I merge it, but I'll plan to merge it 17:47:44 CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg 17:47:48 present+ 17:47:50 +1 17:48:03 Matt_King: Remember that this is not motivated by an accessibility concern. Rather, the generation logic is picking up H2 elements and inserting them into its table of contents. 17:48:30 Siri: Can we add a note to explain why we have made this change? 17:48:48 q+ 17:49:12 Siri: We usually don't use H1 elements like this 17:49:49 Matt_King: That sounds like a new issue: an issue discussing whether or not we recommend using H1 elements within the dialog pattern 17:50:13 Daniel: My initial impulse was to use H3 elements because those dialogs exist within specific sections 17:50:52 Daniel: We eventually stepped away from that justification, but I do agree that this would be good to discuss in a new issue 17:51:31 Topic: PR 3387: Clarify guidance for Focusability of disabled controls 17:51:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/3387 17:51:43 Matt_King: This is Adam_Page's pull request 17:51:51 Matt_King: I'm in the middle of reviewing it 17:52:44 Matt_King: I've already made a couple suggestions in the pull request. I hope they're good! It was kind of hard for me to review my own suggestions in the GitHub UI following some recent changes on that site 17:53:02 Matt_King: I was trying to soften up some of the language a bit more, and I have an idea for one more suggestion along those lines 17:53:14 Matt_King: It would be nice to get some other perspective on this pull request 17:53:38 Adam_Page: I've read your feedback, and I agree with all of it. I committed all the changes you suggested 17:54:56 q+ 17:54:58 Matt_King: There's a paragraph that reads, "In the APG, our examples have adopted the following" with a list of two items (the second having a bunch of sub-list items). Those two list items are worded in a definitive way. I'm thinking of aligning the wording of those list items with the wording of the text that precedes them 17:55:09 q? 17:55:16 Jem_: I appreciate the directness of that wording 17:55:39 Matt_King: But the feedback is that we want to make sure the optionality is clear to readers 17:57:59 Adam_Page: I understand what you're getting at. There's an important rhetorical difference between "we did this" and "the reader should do this", and this change kind of mixes those two stances 17:58:07 Adam_Page: I'll take another pass with that in mind 18:00:53 Zakim, end the meeting 18:00:53 As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, Siri, Daniel, Adam_Page, jongund, Jem_, Matt_King, CurtBellew 18:00:55 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 18:00:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/18-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim 18:01:05 I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:01:05 Zakim has left #aria-apg