Meeting minutes
zakim next item
New PR Triage
<github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
jamesn: editorial for the first one
daniel: i'll fix it
jamesn: fix role attr definition. Mostly editorial, but would appreciate reviews.
jamesn: long-standing issue about who defines role attribute (maybe a bit of concept)
jamesn: If you have both attribute and concept in the same spec, the references go to the attribute, which isn't what we always want.
jamesn: reviewers?
spectranaut: I'll review
adam: I'll review
rahim: I thought role was a separate spec at some point. Any history?
jamesn: It was an ARIA precursor, but ancient history.
jcraig: Was mostly tied to XML before ARIA.
jcraig: something about hair
jamesn: Two chores, so we can skip the next two.
jamesn: Without meeting last week, may have... nothing else.
New Issue Triage
<github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
jamesn: A long issue triage since it's been a month.
jamesn: 2797: "headings should not be labeled by author" has some feedback
jamesn: should we close it?
scott: I appreciate it brings up issues from the past that have gone nowhere.
jamesn: We have duplicate issues.
scott: Maybe not the landmark part.
scott: Though he may have meant exposing the heading when navigating to a landmark.
jamesn: Do we need to talk about this? It seems like a duplicate.
<Rahim> Curious how this interacts with nameFromHeading as well
spectranaut_: We should agenda this.
jamesn: 2796: Imapact of AI tech... should we agenda this?
jamesn: You can also add stuff
spectranaut_: The intent was to collect thoughts
Daniel: We can set aside time for discussion and bring it back to the issue.
jamesn: CSSAAM 20: reorg repo labels
Daniel: I'll look
jamesn: CSS-AAM #19, we can skip that for now but leave comments.
jamesn: ARIA 1.3 WD is for later
jamesn: 2791: posinset, asking for a deep dive. Matt, do you think it's needed?
Matt_King: Or you can handle it in a regular meeting and then see if it warrants a deep dive.
jamesn: I'll agenda for next week.
Matt_King: I just remembered -- we need specific people for the discussion. SR reps.
jamesn: 607 simply aside mappings; it's on today's agenda
jamesn: 2785: overscroll, deep dive last week
jamesn: html-aam 606, for HTML spec with readonly attr on fieldset.
scott: I provided questions, but it's not a perfect analogue. Nothing to do right now.
scott: I can ask the mappings for the proposal.
jamesn: html-aam 605: whitespace-only alt attribute
jamesn: Just adding tests.
giacomo-petri: Yes, and maybe a question for ARIA in HTML
giacomo-petri: For an empty image alt or one with white space
jamesn: Can you file against ARIA in HTML?
giacomo-petri: Yes.
giacomo-petri: I suggested a change to a PR to mention the examples to discuss how browsers expose them.
jamesn: Yeah, that's inconsistent and we should have test, suggest how they should be implemented.
jamesn: Are we agreed on implementation?
giacomo-petri: The PR says empty alt should have the same as alt with white space.
<Rahim> https://
Rahim: HTML spec has a definition of white space, is that what you want to use Giacomo?
jamesn: This would also need... in HTML-AAM?
scott: We already have this in HTML AAM, but this addresses a gap.
jamesn: So it says white space?
<smockle> https://
scott: We aligned on this a while ago to address how aria-label behaves.
scott: We didn't have tests to cover it. Giacomo found that.
Rahim: Did we decide where the tests live?
scott: Randomly into WPT folder [something about shooting from a cannon]
Rahim: Giacomo you proposed roles.html?
giacomo-petri: Yes. And to match previous test cases. I'm happy to add more.
jamesn: Why is the ED old?
jamesn: Is this not the correct ED? Why does the URL point to it?
jamesn: I'm looking at the aria-slash URL.
scott: I've never once put "ARIA" into that URL. I thought it just redirected.
jcraig: CLicking the latest ED shows correct URL
jamesn: 2782: draft menu element proposal, for deep dive.
WPT Open PRs
<github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
jcraig: The newish ones have active comments and review threads.
spectranaut_: Did you see my more recent comment about adding tests to AAM for role?
jcraig: I see them. From two weeks ago.
spectranaut_: Oops, might be a draft comment, unpublished.
Deep Dive planning
<github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
jamesn: Do we want to schedule posinset / setsize?
jamesn: Would need afternoon meeting?
Matt_King: Yes, if we want to include Jamie or someone from NVDA.
Matt_King: SHould reach out to as many as possible.
jamesn: Put in the thread who you want to get in the meeting, then we can request times.
Matt_King: Ok
Publishing 1.3
jamesn: Daniel?
Daniel: We published FPWD in 2024, with a bunch of PRs merged, some with normative changes.
Daniel: In order to finish charter year, we should publish WD as soon as possible.
Daniel: I know ARIA Actions is not ready, but we can publish what we have now.
Daniel: If we reach consensus with ARIA Actions before CR, we can still point reviewers there.
Daniel: To move ARIA to REC by end of year, need to do soon.
jcraig: ARIA Actions is implemented behind runtime flag in Safari Tech PReview.
jcraig: I think we need second implementation
Jacques: I'mw working on Chromium implementations.
jcraig: We shouldn't move unless we know there's an active implementation during CR
Daniel: Yes, it should be on the calendar to avoid it being at risk.
Daniel: If second implementation doesn't happen, we can withdraw feature.
Daniel: But it's still not in the ED.
jcraig: I thoujght you said you _Were_ going to merge
Daniel: No, I want a publish WD with what we have, without ARIA Actions.
jcraig: It would be nice to have ARIA actions.
jcraig: CR isn't the final month-long review?
Daniel: No. CR gets you 10 months, and then we ask for move to REC (for another month.)
jcraig: Are you far enough along, JAcques?
Jacques: My goal is to get this done within 2 months and then origin trial.
spectranaut_: Runtime flag is fine
Jacques: I think implementation works in most platforms. But two months.
Matt_King: We should address Daniel's question as posed given outstanding questions that can impact timelines.
jcraig: Fair. I withdraw my rush.
spectranaut_: We cannot delay this WD publication. We go with what we have.
<Jacques> that sounds good to me.
spectranaut_: Then we can ask others to review WD
jcraig: We shouldn't rush it. Go to CR without this hanging over us.
jamesn: THe question is publishing WD for wide review
jamesn: Go to CR as soon as wide review is done.
jamesn: Do we need a formal resolution?
Daniel: It would be nice.
RESOLUTION: group agrees to publish a new Working Draft of ARIA for wide review
Reviews for Android Mappings
spectranaut_: I snuck this in
spectranaut_: I want to get a resolution on Android mappings.
spectranaut_: Do I need a consensus to merge this?
jamesn: ANy objections?
RESOLUTION: to merge 2682
RESOLUTION: to merge 2682
Simplify aside mappings
Matt_King: This came up in APG TF a month or so agao.
Matt_King: Looked at updating guidance on complementary landmarks
Matt_King: It seemed more complex than needed.
Matt_King: The proposal is that an aside element only becomes a landmark when it's named or is context of body
Matt_King: So it would be closed to other HTML elements that map to landmark regions
Matt_King: Otherwise it's a far more complex algorithm.
scott: Part of the history is that I asked for help with browser bugs. We've already made changes in ARIA spec to align.
scott: I don't agree it's too complex. Only change seems to not restrict to main element.
scott: Feels like undoing work that's been decided but only partly implemented.
Matt_King: We some texts related to header and footer.
scott: I don't know what that's in reference too.
scott: I don't know what that's in reference to.
scott: But those are also partially resolved with section header/footer.
spectranaut_: We talked about this in the past and try not to go back too often on our previous decisions.
spectranaut_: THis is the last 10% taking 90% of the time because browsers are slow to implement.
spectranaut_: I caution against changing past decisions.
aardrian: Was the proposal to expose regardless of where in DOM and unnamed?
<Jacques> I'm always happy to help folks contribute to chromium! Just reach out.
Matt_King: No, only if in context of body, otherwise it would require a name.
Matt_King: ARIA says you can have a complementary inside main. But this is closer to what we require for section to be named.
Matt_King: Every pull quote becomes a complementary region, because they use it wrong.
Matt_King: So we end up with tons of complementary regions.
aardrian: WOuldn't that be an implementation issue?
Matt_King: That would be an HTML AAM decision.
scott: The previous decision was that we would keep it mapped to complementary both scoped to body or main
jamesn: If we want to do this, then we need sufficient evidence.
<aardrian> +1
jamesn: Web sites where this would cause a problem and web sites where it would be better.
Matt_King: I don't know how you prove the case of degradation.
jamesn: Search for a bunch of sites with this pattern and test them.
jamesn: If you'd expect them to be complementary, then you should investigate how it was done.
Rahim: I'm curious why this wouldn't be an author requirement or best practice instead.
Matt_King: Authors don't know it will become complementary by default.
jamesn: If you want to move this forward, I think you need examples where it breaks things.
Matt_King: Ok. I think we can find some way to do that.
jamesn: Let's leave it until there's more evidence. Nobody seems to object if there's evidence.
feat: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec
sarah: I'm curious what Matt meant that there's a bunch of open issues.
sarah: I found one, but things seem stable.
Matt_King: I submitted a review just before this meeting, but there may be 3 I raised.
sarah: Are you sure they aren't addressed? I fixed one and two before the meeting.
sarah: They were editorial and I added wording that was covered in the spec.
Matt_King: I'll re-review.
sarah: I left one because it's the focus question in 2691. It's already in Core AAM
Matt_King: Thank you, I will re-review.
Matt_King: Then our primary thing is to address 2691.
Matt_King: SHould there be language related to focusability of referencing element?
sarah: The referencing element needs to be focusable, not referenced.
Matt_King: We need an author MUST for the element.
sarah: It's heavily implied?
jamesn: Sounds like a review comment.
Matt_King: Yes, I'll leave that when I re-review.
sarah: For 2691, we don't define behaviors like focus movement in ARIA or Core AAM up until now.
sarah: We should nail this down, but I'm curious how it fits into our specs.
Matt_King: It's an extension of author's ability to manage focus.
Matt_King: When we first wrote managing focus, it was related.
sarah: We have wording about author focus management, but we lack browser-focused focus management behavior.
sar
jamesn: We're at time...
<Jacques> where can we continue this conversation?
sarah: If I were to draft wording, how would it look?
jamesn: Time.
jamesn: We've had ARIA Actions on agenda a lot, but we haven't had the people.
jamesn: Agenda it again.
jamesn: REviews are helpful outside of meeting.