Minutes from 15 February

Minutes from the ARIA teleconference of 15 February are provided below as
text. They're available as hypertext at:

https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-aria-minutes.html


   W3C

                                                                                   - DRAFT -

                                                      Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

15 Feb 2018

Attendees

   Present
          Joanmarie_Diggs, Irfan_Ali, jamesn, jongund, mat_king, Stefan, janina, matt_king

   Regrets
          Irfan_Ali

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          janina

Contents

     * Topics
         1. AccName inconsistent implementation (Bryan's findings)
         2. All hands on deck to get AccName out the door
         3. AccName algorithm: What spec changes are needed, and when?
         4. AccName spec testable statements: Writing and verification
         5. Ad Hoc Issues
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions
     _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <joanie> agenda: this

   <joanie> agenda: be done

   <scribe> scribe: janina

AccName inconsistent implementation (Bryan's findings)

All hands on deck to get AccName out the door

   jd: Two specs depend on accname, so we need to get accname out so those other two can move

   mc: accname needs to be as mature as the other specs, i.e. cr if they're cr

   jd: Noting that the dependencies aren't just for the aam, but on the actual algo
   ... This got me to put a list of tasks together than can help us as a group get this out

   <joanie> 1. Port testable statements from ARIA 1.0 to wiki (done by Joanie)

   jd: Done!

   <joanie> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AccName_1.1_Testable_Statements

   jd: Mostly tests Michael exported from 1.0
   ... Expected results have changed, though
   ... test names point to 1.0

   <joanie> https://github.com/WhatSock/w3c-alternative-text-computation

   jd: uses a tool that presents expected results environment by environment
   ... Have ported

   <joanie> 2. Port any missing ARIA 1.0 description related tests to wiki (will be done by Joanie + Michael)

   bg: just a js function

   jd: Joanie and Michael will do

   <joanie> 3. Convert wiki tests to WPT and add to WPT repo (being done by Joanie)

   jd: Essentially done--waiting on a pull request
   ... In the works--expecting from Shane soon

   <joanie> 4. Gathering test results for all platforms (Joanie will coordinate and provide Linux and Mac results, Jon Gunderson for IA2, UIA? Jon or MS)

   jd: Will coordinate all
   ... JG, can you do IA2?

   jg: Probably also UI Automate

   jd: OK, tentavily for UIA

   <joanie> 5. Validate test cases using Bryan's tool (hopefully can assign to bryan)

   <joanie> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AccName_1.1_Testable_Statements

   jd: Level 3 headings -- if statements , please port between if and then

   bg: Actually put those conditions in?

   jd: Yes, so can click on a button and get the expected results

   bg; Will look

   jd: Noting most are simple, and hoping they're not wrong
   ... We're hoping to learn the expected results are actually correct
   ... If we can't predict without pulling out tools, maybe we're too complex. After 1.1, we'll return to discuss this issue

   bg: noting certain areas of spec don't match realworld expectations
   ... part of my reason for working on a tool

   <joanie> 6. Identify missing test cases, i.e. something in algorithm for which we lack coverage (assignee?). RELATED: LET'S BE SIMPLE in our cases

   jd: Not convinced we have all needed tests
   ... was looking at a span that yielded different results everywhere

   <joanie> <span role="presentation" aria-label="Eli">

   <joanie> <span aria-label="Garaventa">Zambino</span>

   <joanie> </span>

   jd: above 3 lines example of missing test
   ... table would be another
   ... we also want to make it easy for devs to file bugs

   mk Thinking of situations which required html knowledge in addition to accname

   mk: i.e. sometimes the answer is in the html spec
   ... should we be referring to relevant parts of other specs?

   jd: let's make that a 1.2 question
   ... Need everyone's help on identifying missing test cases. Please add!
   ... Don't expect cases added to wiki ...

   <joanie> 7. Triage issues filed against AccName, i.e. 1.1 or 1.2. For 1.1, obtain proposed changes to algorithm and get pull requests (assignee?)

   jd: i.e. 1.1 or 1.2?

   <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues

   jd: Need to triage that list

   mk: Can take a first pass, certainly
   ... Understand if relatively easy, propose a solution for 1.1

   jd: Correct

   mk: A bit concerned of timeline ..... Next week a short week
   ... Believe could do week following next

   jd: Noting also that we need to figure out when we can go CR, because that sets a clock

AccName algorithm: What spec changes are needed, and when?

   jd: basically, this is what mk is looking at
   ... any other

AccName spec testable statements: Writing and verification

   jd: BG will do the verification part of tests on wiki ... porting to his tool
   ... I can followup with sanity checking

   [discussion of accname that could be 1.2]

   mk: wondering if there other things in the spec not clearly spelled out that bg could document?

   bg: 3 areas ...
   ... browsers are filling gaps that are unclear
   ... white space is 1
   ... ties to block vs inline
   ... also multiple ids
   ... two levels to issue between block level and inline elements
   ... css styling related
   ... then also css pseudo elements
   ... label elements another -- when associated with same form field -- aminor thing

   mk: will be mindful as triaging
   ... inclined to leave css out
   ... believe that's 1.2, though

   jd: agreed
   ... No meaty issues at this point! Those are 1.2

   bg: we need to agree on what should be happening

   jd: yes

Ad Hoc Issues

   jd: Who's consuming accname?

   <joanie> If assistive technologies utilize the accessibility tree to convey this information, then these browser improvements will automatically increase
   accessibility within these assistive technologies.

   jd: ats consume info from tree to convey the info
   ... Believe we want browsers to be the only consumers of accname

   bg: agree the goal, but noting it's not what's happening now

   mk: can't blame ie11, though

   jd: Expressing thanks all around--lots of awesome work, especially bg's tool!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present: Joanmarie_Diggs Irfan_Ali jamesn jongund mat_king Stefan janina matt_king
Regrets: Irfan_Ali
Found Scribe: janina
Found Date: 15 Feb 2018

-- 

Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2018 19:27:36 UTC