17:03:13 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:03:17 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-aria-irc 17:03:17 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:03:18 Meeting: ARIA WG 17:03:21 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/690d057f-db6d-4169-b13f-68d7f1336b59/20260618T130000/ 17:03:21 clear agenda 17:03:21 agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-06-12+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues 17:03:21 agenda+ -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y 17:03:21 agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates 17:03:22 agenda+ -> Request for aria-describefor and aria-labelfor as ways to set accessible description and label in the inverse direction https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2807 17:03:30 agenda+ -> Accessibility mapping of element https://github.com/w3c/mathml-aam/issues/39 17:03:31 agenda+ -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691 17:03:34 agenda+ -> Allow aria-valuetext for use with combobox role https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2417 17:03:37 agenda+ -> update UIA mapping for maxlength https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2272 17:03:40 agenda+ -> Allow treeitems to omit groups by specifiying aria-level, aria-posinset, and aria-setsize https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2091 17:03:43 agenda+ Update ARIA in HTML Recommendation with proposed amendments based on -> AC questionnaire results https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/html-aria-proposed-amendments-20260407/results/ 17:03:47 jamesn has joined #aria 17:04:04 present+ 17:04:04 scribe+ 17:04:13 present+ 17:04:21 present+ 17:04:23 katez has joined #aria 17:04:25 giacomo-petri has joined #aria 17:04:25 zakim, next item 17:04:25 agendum 1 -- -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-06-12+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:04:25 I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me. 17:04:25 zakim, agenda? 17:04:27 present+ 17:04:28 present+ 17:04:29 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 17:04:29 1. -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-06-12+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues [from agendabot] 17:04:29 2. -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y [from agendabot] 17:04:29 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot] 17:04:30 4. -> Request for aria-describefor and aria-labelfor as ways to set accessible description and label in the inverse direction https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2807 [from 17:04:30 ... agendabot] 17:04:30 5. -> Accessibility mapping of element https://github.com/w3c/mathml-aam/issues/39 [from agendabot] 17:04:30 6. -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691 [from agendabot] 17:04:32 present+ 17:04:34 7. -> Allow aria-valuetext for use with combobox role https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2417 [from agendabot] 17:04:34 8. -> update UIA mapping for maxlength https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2272 [from agendabot] 17:04:34 9. -> Allow treeitems to omit groups by specifiying aria-level, aria-posinset, and aria-setsize https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2091 [from agendabot] 17:04:34 present+ 17:04:36 10. Update ARIA in HTML Recommendation with proposed amendments based on -> AC questionnaire results https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/html-aria-proposed-amendments-20260407/results/ 17:04:36 ... [from agendabot] 17:04:39 Jacques has joined #aria 17:05:05 jamesn: PR triage 17:05:14 present+ 17:05:25 zakim, agenda order is 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 17:05:25 ok, Daniel 17:05:40 zakim, agenda? 17:05:40 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 17:05:41 10. Update ARIA in HTML Recommendation with proposed amendments based on -> AC questionnaire results https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/html-aria-proposed-amendments-20260407/results/ 17:05:41 ... [from agendabot] 17:05:41 1. -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-06-12+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues [from agendabot] 17:05:41 2. -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y [from agendabot] 17:05:45 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot] 17:05:45 4. -> Request for aria-describefor and aria-labelfor as ways to set accessible description and label in the inverse direction https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2807 [from 17:05:45 ... agendabot] 17:05:45 5. -> Accessibility mapping of element https://github.com/w3c/mathml-aam/issues/39 [from agendabot] 17:05:47 6. -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691 [from agendabot] 17:05:47 7. -> Allow aria-valuetext for use with combobox role https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2417 [from agendabot] 17:05:47 8. -> update UIA mapping for maxlength https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2272 [from agendabot] 17:05:50 9. -> Allow treeitems to omit groups by specifiying aria-level, aria-posinset, and aria-setsize https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2091 [from agendabot] 17:06:11 ... first up aria 2821, editorial clarify def and term 17:06:47 Matt_King has joined #aria 17:07:02 present+ 17:07:13 theo: you can add me 17:07:44 jamesn: next an aria.js one 17:08:01 ... then a css-aam, still in draft. 17:08:19 zakim, next item 17:08:19 agendum 10 -- Update ARIA in HTML Recommendation with proposed amendments based on -> AC questionnaire results 17:08:21 ... https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/html-aria-proposed-amendments-20260407/results/ -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:08:44 jamesn: we had one suggested change from review. 17:08:51 ... minor changes from google. 17:09:34 Daniel: one issue is still open, one has a PR. My suggestion would be to merge the PR and send it out. 17:09:38 scott has joined #aria 17:09:50 siri: I can organize review. 17:10:08 scotto: the PR addresses both issues. I didn't merge because there was no response so far. 17:11:03 jamesn: we should do best effort to incorporate them but they're suggestions and the reviewers have stated support. 17:11:13 Daniel: we can send it as is or with changes from review (in terms of process) 17:11:32 jamesn: if they're easier to merge, we can. If not, let's move on. 17:11:39 Daniel: yeah, the process is the same for living standards. 17:11:39 HaTheo has joined #ARIA 17:11:42 zakim, next item. 17:11:42 agendum 2 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:11:42 I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me. 17:11:44 present+ 17:12:03 jamesn: what needs attention here? 17:12:13 tyler: one is mine but there's not much to talk about it yet. 17:12:35 zakim, close this item. 17:12:35 agendum 2 closed 17:12:36 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:12:36 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot] 17:12:37 zakim, next item 17:12:37 agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:12:37 I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me. 17:13:02 jamesn: any updates/ 17:13:45 tyler: I had messaged James Craig from previous discussion 17:13:52 jamesn: I'll get in touch with others 17:13:55 zakim, next item 17:13:55 agendum 4 -- -> Request for aria-describefor and aria-labelfor as ways to set accessible description and label in the inverse direction https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2807 -- 17:13:58 ... taken up [from agendabot] 17:15:05 jamesn: I like the idea but I'm worried about browser performance here - though I'd defer to experts there. 17:15:15 q+ 17:15:41 CurtBellew has joined #aria 17:15:43 Rahim: is this trying to get around problems of lack of control of third party code? 17:16:02 ... e.g. libraries or other authors. 17:16:10 "There are sometimes scenarios where you don't have control over the base HTML of a component (for example, with 3rd party code) but you control the HTML around it. It'd be nice to be able to provide names and descriptions for components that you don't have direct control over.” 17:16:17 q+ 17:16:23 Ack Rahim 17:16:28 q+ 17:16:33 Ack smockle 17:16:35 present + 17:16:37 ... if you control the code, then the existing methods are enough, right? 17:16:54 clay: if you didn't have access, how would you have a stable ID to point to? 17:16:54 Ack aardrian 17:16:58 q+ 17:17:20 Ack sarah 17:17:23 is this to stop double reading? 17:17:24 aardrian: I think the experience is that often enough there is stable third party code. Otherwise agreed you can't. 17:17:49 sarah: often you can pass props into components and ID is more common than aria attributes. 17:17:59 ... so if it doesn't impact performance, it seems nice. 17:18:17 q+ 17:18:31 Ack Matt_King 17:18:34 q+ 17:18:35 jamesn: I'm hoping the APIs should be able to reuse the current connections, in reverse. 17:19:37 q+ 17:19:38 Matt_King: thinking about how to spec this. Since we have label and labelledby etc. might make it complicated. Do they take precedence over the others? Or never? Or combine them? In which order? Seems complicated. 17:19:53 Ack Jacques 17:20:18 Ack scott 17:20:22 Jacques: adding to matt. It doesn't raise red flags in terms of performance for me but complexity is added which is ok if it's useful. 17:20:57 scotto: seconding the above. I understand the need. But since it hasn't been there from the start, I'm concerned how to shoehorn it in. 17:21:26 q+ 17:21:27 ... I like it and yet concerned. 17:21:32 Ack Rahim 17:22:01 Rahim: is this just scoped to naming? 17:22:03 jamesn: yes/ 17:22:14 q+ 17:22:17 Rahim: ok I think this will take more thought. 17:22:20 Ack giacomo-petri 17:22:47 q+ 17:22:49 giacomo-petri: the specific attribute name might cause typos. 17:22:58 Ack scott 17:23:02 jamesn: right. there was another comment on a similar issue. 17:23:25 scotto: I wonder if we should reconsider the naming by encapsulation we let go. 17:24:16 ... encapsulation, you could use aria-owns to move things around. 17:24:42 ... encapsulation would then do the same. 17:25:31 jamesn: to recap, if this doesn't have performance problems then there seems some general agreement that this might be a good idea but there is concern that integrating it into existing naming mechanisms might be tricky. 17:25:49 Q? 17:25:50 zakim, next item 17:25:50 agendum 5 -- -> Accessibility mapping of element https://github.com/w3c/mathml-aam/issues/39 -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:26:14 jamesn: we triaged it last week. 17:26:49 ... it seems a elements do more in mathml. my view is: do what you like, map it accordingly. 17:26:49 q+ 17:26:58 ... are there any other thoughts? 17:27:01 ack tyl 17:27:23 tyler: I looked briefly. It seems that sometimes it's a link and sometimes a table row. 17:27:39 ... I might be wrong but VoiceOver will treat links as atomic links. 17:28:22 ... I'm not convinced that by just calling it a link it can't contain complex layout. 17:28:28 jamesn: can you try to find out? 17:28:39 zakim, next item 17:28:39 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, pkra 17:28:48 Ack tw 17:28:50 zakim, next item 17:28:50 agendum 6 -- -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691 -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:29:20 jamesn: we had a question from previous comments. 17:29:34 ... from james craig to sarah. 17:29:41 ... do we need more right now? 17:29:58 sarah: I meant "we" as in the people in the discussion. 17:30:02 Jacques: agreed. 17:30:09 ... we also have the notes from the call with jamie. 17:31:02 jamesn: ok. So we can move forward? 17:31:13 Jacques: yeah I think there's nothing new right now. 17:31:19 sarah: I will have to follow up. 17:31:33 Jacques: did we have TAG review? 17:31:48 Daniel: that usually happens during review for the next editors' draft. 17:32:45 jamesn: right, that's weird since we no longer add things to the draft unless we have support for 2 and 1 active implementation. 17:32:50 Daniel: right. We should update the process. 17:33:07 q+ 17:33:08 Matt_King: we should try to do this before implementers get too far. Right now we're trying to find out what's feasible. 17:33:28 ... In particular to move forward our consensus. 17:33:45 sarah: agreed. Could we have TAG review anyway? 17:33:53 Daniel: I think we can do that. 17:34:07 jamesn: could TAG review a PR? 17:34:17 Ack Jacques 17:34:17 Daniel: not sure but other review groups might 17:34:21 q+ 17:34:49 Jacques: I hesitate to say we're just experimenting. Firefox has shipped, we're trying to get it done for Chromium. 17:35:13 ... I think we have consensus on what's author-facing. The last piece is user facing. 17:35:25 ... Do others agree with that statement? 17:35:31 ... then we can focus review on that. 17:36:07 Matt_King: I agree. But I'm not sure how well specified it. We have author requirements but the spec doesn't say "here's what we expect for users". 17:36:17 ... that makes it difficult to say what success looks like. 17:37:07 Jacques: my thinking is that with the API as is right now, authors can associate actions. The contract is that screenreaders should take this into account like primary actions such as context menus. 17:37:25 ... how specifically doesn't concern the authors as much? 17:37:35 ... arguably a bit handwavy 17:37:46 Matt_King: as author you need to know what the feature will do and what it will enable. 17:38:22 ... people are basing it on iOS behaviors that people know. If the results end up differently, then it might confuse authors. 17:38:24 Ack sarah 17:39:12 sarah: I somewhat disagree as well. The discussion has moved to "screenreaders should do it". Even if it moves to user agents, then it'll be weak enough for browsers do what they want. 17:39:19 ... I don't see it changing for authors. 17:39:56 ... I think regardless what happens to focus you still want to do it. If users know there's an action they will likely have a method to query those actions. 17:40:13 ... I don't see how the particular outcome of our discussion influences authoring. 17:40:23 Matt_King: I think it still might. 17:40:52 sarah: it will still be more accessible with aria-actions, no? 17:41:21 Matt_King: if you can't achieve a usable interface with actions, then you'll have to change the design. 17:41:47 sarah: right. right now we have semi-hidden keyboard behavior that's not surfaced easily. 17:41:55 ... and that's not great. 17:42:28 Matt_King: if the outcomes are too different across platforms, it might prevent predictable results for users. 17:42:35 Agenda? 17:43:03 Jacques: could you give an example for this divergence? 17:44:10 ... aria actions will provide users with information on those. Authors won't care how users interact with those features. They'll get there somehow. 17:44:55 Matt_King: divergence will make it more difficult though. Divergence is already a problem across platform. So is unpredictability . 17:45:13 sarah: could we come up with an example? 17:45:50 q+ 17:46:28 Matt_King: if activating the action in Apple environment it allows you to activate without moving but on windows you're moved to the element and have to move back as user, then that's a divergence. If the result of performing the action is unpredictable then we have a problem. 17:46:56 twilco has joined #aria 17:47:12 sarah: right. that doesn't seem like an author concern. Obviously for users it is a difference. But my opinion on the quality as author is somewhat irrelevant. 17:47:28 Ack Daniel 17:47:29 ... it seems more about making good UX for screenreader users. 17:47:46 Daniel: an example we've mentioned is a product cart. You want to add multiples of the same item. 17:47:57 ... it seems down to an AT decision how they want to handle that. 17:48:46 ... but I'd hope we have enough in the spec to clarify such interfaces. In iOS, you have to tap it again but with windows screenreaders it's more painful. 17:48:57 ... but I'm not sure who needs to remediate this kind of problem. 17:49:01 q+ 17:49:09 ... but clear guidance to do it predictably is important I think. 17:49:34 Matt_King: doesn't it matter to authors where the focus is moved after the action is triggered? 17:49:55 sarah: the focus will fire, right? It will be the same whether AT or user or UA moves it back. 17:50:21 ... even if screenreaders do it differently, as author you get the event and you know where focus is and you respond. 17:51:20 Matt_King: from a product team perspective who want to deliver a high quality experience, having different behaviors, procedures and outcomes are a problem. 17:51:38 ... like any other web platform feature, if it behaves differently it's not interoperable. 17:52:04 q+ 17:52:20 Ack smockle 17:52:24 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691#issuecomment-4676475237 17:52:28 ... when we're adding new features we should aim to allow users to get the same fundamental behaviors. Of course AT should customize the presentation but the basics should be the same. 17:52:42 Jacques: Just to repeat Jamie's point. 17:52:58 ... about racing conditions. 17:53:07 ... this seems like the most concrete concern around that. 17:53:59 ... e.g. if a user removal fails, then focus might move to error banner. If it's done via actions, then it's unclear if users end up on such an error banner. 17:54:15 Ack sarah 17:54:32 sarah: I think that's why we want to see if the AT solution is possible. 17:55:10 twilco has joined #aria 17:56:01 ... on platform differences. If we do it in browsers, then that must be standardized. But if we do it at the AT level, then it's not an interop concern. The way screenreader triggers focus already changes not just by platform but users and their settings. That's always been an AT concern. 17:56:24 ... not just screenreaders. The web platform needs to handle that so that authors can observer where focus moves. But beyond that it's hugely diverse. 17:56:55 ... even just moving the virtual cursor can move focus or not. And that impacts authors a lot. 17:57:59 jamesn: since we're coming to the end, it seems we still have fundamental disagreements. 17:58:20 Matt_King: I'd say we primarily need more documentation as to what should happen. 17:58:32 jamesn: how do we make that happen? 17:58:43 sarah: I do think the question is do UAs or AT handle focus? 17:58:59 q+ 17:59:01 ... for UAs it's more normative. For AT it would be a note? 17:59:07 Zakim, close the queue 17:59:07 ok, jamesn, the speaker queue is closed 17:59:24 ... if the race condition shows up in practice, then we need to decide. 17:59:38 ... and screenreaders can still ignore it. 17:59:49 Ack twilco 18:00:25 tyler: I think the race condition is a realistic scenario. I think we can avoid what Jamie's point 4 has. 18:00:33 ... maybe both UA and AT can 18:00:38 sarah: I think so, ATs get the focus event. 18:00:40 tyler: true. 18:00:55 jamesn: do folks need to get together outside the regular meetings? 18:01:09 sarah: we need to figure out whether the race condition is a real problem. 18:01:26 ... I'm working to make some examples. 18:01:29 zakim, end meeting 18:01:29 As of this point the attendees have been sarah, filippo-zorzi, siri, smockle, katez, Rahim, giacomo-petri, Jacques, Matt_King, HaTheo 18:01:31 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 18:01:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-aria-minutes.html Zakim 18:01:40 I am happy to have been of service, pkra; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:01:40 Zakim has left #aria