17:00:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
17:00:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-aria-irc
17:00:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:00:49 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA WG
17:00:53 <jamesn> Agendabot, find agenda
17:00:53 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
17:00:53 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/690d057f-db6d-4169-b13f-68d7f1336b59/20260917T130000/
17:00:53 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:00:53 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://da.gd/wXaJZX
17:00:54 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-09-10+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues
17:00:57 <agendabot> agenda+ -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y
17:00:59 <agendabot> agenda+ -> TPAC planning https://tinyurl.com/ariaf2fcandidate
17:01:02 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Add explicit language and direction metadata to AriaNotificationOptions https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2828  - quick check on status
17:01:05 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Editorial: I18n considerations for translatable attributes https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2862  - reminder to review
17:01:08 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #aria
17:01:12 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Security Horizontal Review https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2861  - quick check on status
17:01:13 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:01:14 <agendabot> agenda+ -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691  - quick check on status
17:01:17 <agendabot> agenda+ -> "accessibility descendant" in presentational role inheritance and other concerns https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2832
17:01:20 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Questions about the toolbar role https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2831
17:01:23 <agendabot> agenda+ -> posinset/setsize for radiogroups https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/598
17:01:25 <katez> katez has joined #aria
17:01:57 <katez> present+
17:02:21 <Jacques> Jacques has joined #aria
17:02:32 <Francis> present+
17:02:32 <spectranaut_> scribe: spectranaut
17:02:37 <Jacques> present+
17:02:41 <Daniel> present+
17:02:53 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:02:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://da.gd/wXaJZX -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:02:53 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:02:55 <aardrian> aardrian has joined #ARIA
17:02:58 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #aria
17:03:01 <aardrian> present+
17:03:02 <filippo-zorzi> present+
17:03:40 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
17:03:40 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2898
17:03:56 <sarah> sarah has joined #aria
17:04:00 <sarah> present+
17:04:11 <spectranaut_> jamesn: Daniel, should we have a convo with them?
17:04:12 <pkra> present+
17:04:35 <spectranaut_> Daniel: I was going to reply, what is the real purpose, what is the benefit, in addition to html specifications don't have this list
17:04:46 <spectranaut_> Daniel: eventually we will probably have to set up a meeting
17:04:50 <spectranaut_> jamesn: assigning to you
17:05:04 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/611
17:05:51 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_: I asked tyler to do this, you can assign to me
17:06:06 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2897
17:06:14 <spectranaut_> jamesn: Daniel, can we do this?
17:06:34 <spectranaut_> Daniel: I thought we didn't want to do this, there are old environments that use that aria 1.1 so it's valid for them
17:06:54 <spectranaut_> jamesn: I'm not convinced the old browser argument works anymore, all browsers auto update now
17:06:58 <spectranaut_> Daniel: ok, sounds reasonable
17:07:02 <spectranaut_> jamesn: anyone disagree?
17:07:03 <giacomo-petri> q+
17:07:38 <spectranaut_> giacomo-petri: I discussed in the WCAG group as well with Kevin, the reason why we are not doing this in WCAG, WCAG has legal requirements. are there legal requirements referencing ARIA 1.1
17:07:46 <spectranaut_> jamesn: if they are, they should change it
17:07:57 <spectranaut_> giacomo-petri: ok :)
17:08:04 <aardrian> The legal reason justifies adding the warning, IMO
17:08:11 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2896
17:08:47 <spectranaut_> jamesn: I think personally we might want to add mappings/comment in html-aam to say that this exposes a listbox in this case, so option is a child
17:08:54 <spectranaut_> jamesn: should we discuss this more?
17:09:06 <spectranaut_> matt: yeah lets agenda it
17:09:08 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #aria
17:09:14 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2893
17:09:16 <spectranaut_> editorial
17:09:25 <jcraig> present+
17:09:25 <jcraig> agenda?
17:09:35 <spectranaut_> pkra: someone did an AI generated PR that I closed because it showed I underestimate the work
17:10:02 <spectranaut_> pkra: I saw explict mentions of ARIA 1.2. For example, is deprecated IN aria 1.2, and is should be changed to SINCE aria 1.2, I'll take this one
17:10:08 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2891
17:10:24 <spectranaut_> jamesn: it's f2f candidate, we talk about it then
17:10:57 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
17:11:11 <Matt_King> present+
17:11:29 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2889
17:11:49 <spectranaut_> jamesn: we have discussed this... is this a needs champion?
17:11:58 <spectranaut_> pkra: maybe a f2f candidate to talk in person about it
17:12:04 <spectranaut_> matt: we have already had the discussion before
17:12:16 <spectranaut_> jamesn: seems like no one said in favor of deprecating
17:12:28 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: we wanted a concrete proposal as a next step, that is why there is an issue
17:12:50 <spectranaut_> pkra: when we talked about this three years, we talked about not deprecating it until we had a better replacement
17:12:58 <spectranaut_> jamesn: I'm going to say needs champion
17:13:06 <spectranaut_> jamesn: someone needs to push forward
17:13:26 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:13:26 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, spectranaut_
17:13:35 <spectranaut_> q?
17:13:36 <jamesn> q?
17:13:38 <spectranaut_> ack giacomo-petri
17:13:47 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:13:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+created:%3E=2026-09-10+repo:w3c/aria&type=Issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:13:47 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:14:02 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2901
17:15:50 <spectranaut_> tyler and jcraig to review
17:16:09 <spectranaut_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2900
17:16:26 <spectranaut_> pkra: this is competing to my next PR
17:16:33 <spectranaut_> pkra: I think either is fine
17:16:45 <spectranaut_> pkra: I'll assign one of them
17:17:05 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:17:05 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://tinyurl.com/wpt-a11y -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:17:05 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:18:41 <spectranaut_> jcraig: we can move on from this
17:18:44 <spectranaut_> zakim, next  item
17:18:44 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> TPAC planning https://tinyurl.com/ariaf2fcandidate -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:18:44 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:19:30 <jcraig> q+
17:19:32 <spectranaut_> jamesn: this is a reminder, to add items you want discussed. Val lets find time next week to review these and schedule
17:19:37 <spectranaut_> ack jcraig
17:19:57 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I'm trying to coordinate WPT meetings as well, so if you have open slots, I need to coordinate meetings with other people
17:20:09 <spectranaut_> jamesn: can you make a placeholder issue for us?
17:20:18 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I think we want Browser Testing and Tools cross meeting
17:20:29 <spectranaut_> jcraig: And then another one just for the ARIA group
17:21:06 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:21:06 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- -> Add explicit language and direction metadata to AriaNotificationOptions https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2828  - quick check on status -- taken up [from
17:21:09 <Zakim> ... agendabot]
17:21:12 <Stefan> Stefan has joined #aria
17:21:23 <Stefan> present+
17:21:41 <spectranaut_> jamesn: quick check in, clay was assigned to this, daniel do you have updates
17:21:47 <Jacques> Jacques has joined #aria
17:22:09 <spectranaut_> Daniel: I think it links to the right PR now, I addressed everyones comments, please approve since my updates.
17:22:27 <spectranaut_> Daniel: waiting on xfq consent
17:22:44 <spectranaut_> jamesn: there are  a few comments in the PR that haven't been resolved by the look of it
17:23:18 <spectranaut_> Daniel: I think at this point we should split them, we are all in agreement with the internationalization prose, but the security needs more discussion.
17:23:42 <spectranaut_> jcraig: yeah can you take out the security thing and make a new PR?
17:23:58 <spectranaut_> jcraig: if there are commetns we don't want to lose... that might be tricky
17:24:11 <spectranaut_> jamesn: more are on the internationalization side, so easier to split out security
17:24:16 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:24:16 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- -> Editorial: I18n considerations for translatable attributes https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2862  - reminder to review -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:24:16 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:24:58 <spectranaut_> Daniel: ok this is the one I originally thought we were talking about
17:24:59 <pkra> q+
17:25:04 <sarah> q+
17:25:22 <spectranaut_> jamesn: looks like there are comments to be resolved, although I see things have been marked out of date
17:26:08 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #ARIA
17:26:12 <HaTheo> present+
17:26:26 <Daniel> q+
17:26:54 <spectranaut_> pkra: it might not be good to make this seem like a reasonable thing to do, it might encourage bad behavior and WCAG violations, it might be more confusing than helpful.
17:27:21 <spectranaut_> jamesn: can we strengthen this sentence before the example, saying it's likely a WCAG violation to do this
17:27:44 <spectranaut_> pkra: yeah I tried to add suggestions to make it stronger
17:28:07 <spectranaut_> pkra: I'm torn because the suggestion is to give examples of how it can go wrong but I can't think of examples of how it can be right.
17:28:24 <jamesn> Strengthen “ It is best practice for authors to ensure that the language and directionality of the value of a translatable attribute matches the language and directionality of its containing element.”
17:29:05 <spectranaut_> jamesn: "best practice" sounds like it's not a failure, but in fact its almost always a problem, so maybe not the right choice of word
17:29:47 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I don't have a strong opinion about what the right solution is. screen readers/speech engines are getting better at guessing language changes.. but it's not perfect
17:30:01 <spectranaut_> pkra: I don't want to take the pressure off us to find a solution for some of these mixed problems
17:30:49 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I relate to you comment that it feels like the accessibility related specs are challenged on this things which are problems with the main spec, if you want warning language in ARIA, it seems like there should be warning language on the main specs -- HTML etc
17:31:02 <spectranaut_> ack pkra
17:31:04 <jamesn> q?
17:31:08 <jamesn> Ack sarah
17:31:14 <Daniel> q?
17:31:47 <HaTheo> Or a language picker...
17:32:30 <spectranaut_> sarah: I have the same feelings as Peter, but I can think of an example -- for example a flashcard with aria-label instead of aria-labelleby, or a chat app that is responding about a question about a different language that the UI discussion is happening in
17:33:01 <pkra> such a good point about css content!
17:33:03 <spectranaut_> sarah: Would it make sense to add CSS content in here as a thing to avoid because it also has all the same language problems and also more problems
17:33:04 <aardrian> +1
17:33:06 <jamesn> Ack Daniel
17:33:28 <jamesn> agenda?
17:33:32 <spectranaut_> Daniel: right so we do need to respond to the ARIA concern, and CSS should be addressed in CSS specs
17:34:58 <spectranaut_> Daniel: also in terms of the review, addressing the issues with prose is easier than pushing back. This issue is easy to address from editorial perspective, it's just the other fingerprinting issue that would be very complicated to address
17:35:18 <spectranaut_> jamesn: for those who commented, can you live with whats here?  or does it make the spec worse?
17:35:36 <spectranaut_> jcraig: I think the suggestion to modify the second sentence was a good one
17:35:36 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
17:35:53 <spectranaut_> jcraig: this might result in a WCAG practices violation
17:36:07 <spectranaut_> jcraig: otherwise I think it can stand as is
17:36:12 <aardrian> I'm fine with this language.
17:36:16 <Jacques> lgtm +1
17:36:17 <spectranaut_> jamesn: I agree, I'm happy with it with that change
17:36:21 <spectranaut_> pkra: fine with me
17:36:29 <spectranaut_> Daniel: and not mentioning CSS here
17:36:35 <spectranaut_> Daniel: I'll update that
17:37:24 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: quick question about CSS, do you know if AGWG is pointing out that specific failure mode, because it does seem like it's within their purview
17:37:41 <spectranaut_> aardrian: I thought there was a failure technique
17:37:48 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: specifically related to the language?
17:38:06 <spectranaut_> jamesn: not related to the language
17:38:08 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:38:08 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- -> Security Horizontal Review https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2861  - quick check on status -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:38:08 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:38:33 <sarah> don't see anything in wcag language of parts referencing css directly
17:38:44 <spectranaut_> Daniel: we need a meeting with Simone
17:38:47 <sarah> q+
17:38:48 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:38:49 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, spectranaut_
17:38:56 <spectranaut_> ack sarah
17:38:58 <jamesn> Q- sarah
17:39:02 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:39:02 <Zakim> agendum 7 was just opened, spectranaut_
17:39:04 <jamesn> Zakim, next item
17:39:04 <Zakim> agendum 7 was just opened, jamesn
17:39:09 <spectranaut_> zakim, close this item
17:39:09 <Zakim> agendum 7 closed
17:39:09 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:39:09 <Zakim> 8. -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691  - quick check on status [from agendabot]
17:39:12 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:39:12 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- -> aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2691  - quick check on status -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:39:12 <github-bot> I can't comment on that because it doesn't look like a github issue to me.
17:39:56 <spectranaut_> sarah: I need a quick check on something with tyler, jcraig and jacques, is everyone ok with the synchronous focus bounce?
17:40:21 <spectranaut_> sarah: the current wording is a little vague, there is feedback to be specific now, and if we need to change it we can change it in the future
17:40:25 <jcraig> q+
17:41:02 <jamesn> Ack jcraig
17:41:21 <spectranaut_> tyler: webkit implemented what jamie suggested here
17:41:25 <spectranaut_> tyler: so I think we are good
17:41:38 <spectranaut_> jcraig: to clarify what Sarah is pointing at here
17:42:17 <Jacques> q+
17:42:18 <spectranaut_> jcraig: more like this might need to change later..... that could be a blocker, but we think we can  handle this. The goal is to get it into users hands, and workout kinks when we find them
17:42:33 <spectranaut_> jcraig: the major concern is not making a web compat issue does the  line
17:42:34 <jamesn> Ack Jacques
17:42:49 <spectranaut_> Jacques: I want to clarify chrome and firefox have shipped this not behind a flag
17:43:06 <spectranaut_> Jacques: I think it's not a big deal to change it compared to most web APIs
17:43:13 <spectranaut_> tyler: it's still behind a flag
17:43:19 <jamesn> agenda?
17:43:28 <pkra> q+
17:43:38 <jamesn> Ack pkra
17:43:41 <spectranaut_> Jacques: aria-actions in any form, I haven't implemented the focus bouncing, I haven't looked at this but if firefox and webkit are good I'm good
17:44:01 <Daniel> q+
17:44:01 <spectranaut_> pkra: editorial request, can we merge something, I'm talking to people in the spec but there is nothing to point to
17:44:10 <Matt_King> q+
17:44:26 <spectranaut_> jcraig: sounds like we have implementation, we have tests in the browsers, probably not a way to test in WPT yet
17:45:09 <jamesn> Ack Daniel
17:45:10 <spectranaut_> jamesn: I think we can merge stuff.... but not into 1.3 draft??
17:45:30 <spectranaut_> Daniel: if we want to merge, I need to freeze a branch, because we are not in a position to include this in ARIA 1.3...
17:45:48 <spectranaut_> Daniel: if we want this in the editors draft, we need to freeze 1.3
17:46:02 <spectranaut_> ack Daniel
17:46:13 <jamesn> Ack Matt_King
17:46:37 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: This morning I added more comments, Sarah if you have seen them, there are a few places where the language needs to cleaned up
17:46:58 <spectranaut_> sarah: your suggestions looked good, I think they are all editorial
17:47:06 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:47:06 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- -> "accessibility descendant" in presentational role inheritance and other concerns https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2832 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:47:33 <pkra> q+
17:48:28 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_: did someone say they would write tests..........? <silence>
17:48:35 <spectranaut_> pkra: jcraig pointed me to some tests
17:48:48 <spectranaut_> pkra: I'm starting to want to do th is
17:49:44 <spectranaut_> pkra: the best I can come up with is canvas, because the html canvas stuff coming out, audio/video, the test -- if they are not blocked by html-aria (it is prevented on a lot of elements, although browsers don't always follow that)
17:50:02 <spectranaut_> pkra: there is a comment from axe with their investigations, which is just lists and tables
17:50:11 <spectranaut_> pkra: conclusion: only happens for list and tables.
17:50:55 <spectranaut_> pkra: so the general case doesn't work, and is SVG it doesn't make any sense.
17:51:14 <spectranaut_> pkra: so I think we need to update this old spec language
17:51:26 <spectranaut_> pkra: so I'll draft something to update the langauge
17:53:21 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:53:21 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, spectranaut_
17:53:28 <jamesn> Ack p
17:53:30 <spectranaut_> zakim, next item
17:53:30 <Zakim> agendum 10 -- -> Questions about the toolbar role https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2831 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:54:18 <aardrian> Q+
17:54:27 <spectranaut_> pkra: there are two problems:  consistency in teh spec, and the question sarah raised, should we have this it's weird
17:54:44 <spectranaut_> aardrian: I think it's not a must. there can be sufficient context
17:54:47 <jamesn> +1 ro aardrian
17:54:55 <spectranaut_> q+
17:55:05 <jamesn> Ack aardrian
17:55:11 <jamesn> S/ro/to/
17:55:13 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: I think it should be a should
17:56:01 <pkra> q+
17:56:07 <jamesn> Ack spectranaut_
17:56:10 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: the things you might have seen.... it is really difficult when there are multiple toolbars, and toolbars side by side, and they have difference scope on what they are working on . I find the labels really helpful, even  if they are noisey, I wouldn't be able to use without the labels
17:56:31 <jamesn> Ack pkra
17:56:59 <Matt_King> q+
17:57:07 <jamesn> Ack Matt_King
17:57:16 <spectranaut_> pkra: I think obviously WCAG   will kick in and require them, there is plenty of language to suggest you should label things to make them clear. I could get rid of should but understand if you want to keep it
17:57:32 <sarah> q+
17:57:35 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: when we say it's a should in the APG, naming guidance by role, it should be backed by ARIA
17:57:54 <spectranaut_> pkra: I'm worried that if should is there, then authors might blindly add thigns
17:58:03 <spectranaut_> jamesn: or the AI reads the spec
17:58:05 <jamesn> Ack sarah
17:58:50 <spectranaut_> sarah: to Matt's point, there are places where it's help to be a should, but the thing is there are cases where you SHOULDN'T
17:59:12 <spectranaut_> jamesn: you could add something more contextual in there
17:59:20 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: I'm happy to help write a sentence like that
17:59:33 <spectranaut_> pkra: we could use a good sentence/standard language to use in these situaitons
17:59:41 <sarah> spectranaut_ I don't remember being that emphatic about thinking there are toolbars that shouldn't have names :D
17:59:44 <spectranaut_> Matt_King: we might have a sentence like it in the APG
18:00:24 <spectranaut_> RESOLUTION: Remove authors MUST label when multiple toolbars, and propose language for author SHOULD statement.
18:00:41 <spectranaut_> zakim, end meeting
18:00:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been giacomo-petri, katez, Francis, Jacques, Daniel, aardrian, filippo-zorzi, sarah, pkra, jcraig, Matt_King, Stefan, HaTheo
18:00:45 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
18:00:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/17-aria-minutes.html Zakim
18:00:50 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, spectranaut_; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:00:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria
18:31:57 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
19:06:11 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
19:37:20 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
20:23:29 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
21:25:33 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
22:05:47 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
22:31:27 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
23:25:22 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
23:47:19 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria