MINUTES: 24 October 2019 Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

Link to minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html


[W3C]<http://www.w3.org/>

- DRAFT -
Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
24 Oct 2019
Attendees
Present
pkra, jamesn, MarkMccarthy, Joanmarie_Diggs, jongund, MichaelC, harris, CurtBellew, Bryan_Garaventa, Matt_King, Jemma_
Regrets
CarolynMacLeod
Chair
JamesNurthen
Scribe
jongund
Contents

  *   Topics<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#agenda>
     *   Working Method Update Discussion<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#item01>
     *   Walk Through status wiki pages<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#item02>
     *   Remaining Open PRs for ARIA 1.2 (including Combo Box discussion)<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#item03>
  *   Summary of Action Items<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  *   Summary of Resolutions<https://www.w3.org/2019/10/24-aria-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

________________________________

<jamesn> agenda 1,3,2

<jamesn> agenda order is 1,3,2

<scribe> scribe: jongund

Working Method Update Discussion

JN: We have not decided anything, JOanie can you discuss this

<jamesn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/workflow

JD: For somethign to be included in a working draft it has to be complete
... Including authoring practices, tests and industry commitments
... Meter is something I implemented long ago, can practices promise to have an example
... Only very recently four properties that use to be global and now are not
... I am pretty sure that I can implement all that stuff, it will be tedious, and I need code review
... if we do all we said we will be violating our work flow

MK: Is the question, we are landing a ton of practices stuff right now, almost all is done
... That we have required for spec, but we should not ignore the work flow
... The practices have been a good proving ground for the spec

JN: I mostly agree with that, if we have a PR and practices is only waiting for code review
... All the relevant implementation stuff has been done, then maybe it can go in

MK: As long as the other pieces are imminently

JN: Is long as everyone is in agreement

MK: As long as the APG is in agreement

JN: SOmetimes there are scheduling issues
... Any other comments

<MarkMccarthy> +1 to MK and JN

JN: Are you good with that Joanie?

JD: yes

JN: In order to get implementation, these properties that are not global cannot be exposed

JD: I plan to work this weekend, but that doesn't mean google and apple will be
... Do we want to mark them at risk?

MK: It you mark it as at risk, a pretty safe thing to do?

JN: MC what do we do at this stage

MC: Wide review is checking with the world to make sure we are on track
... If we have changes we need to go back to wide review
... But there are some risks, the best thing is to be pretty darn done

JN: Why not just go to CR?

MC: The point of wide review is to make sure that other groups agree with the spec
... We can put in the editors note to give specific feedback

MK: Is an editors an alternative to at risk?

MC: At risk is really only for CR, there is not special markup
... The note says what will happen if the risk occurs

JN: I am not sure how we would message the changes to the global states and properties

MK: I think a simple editors note in the description of each property

JN: this was previously global and now these are not

JD: I propose in this case to make an exception to the normal work flow
... Ask for feedback in wide review and if we do not get comments and we get implementation

JN: I think this should be on a cases by case basis

JD: I am talking about specific cases

JN: Should we step through the wiki on the changes?

JD: Yes
... Can we start with role parity

Walk Through status wiki pages

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/Plans-regarding-role-parity

JD: I am going to cherry pick meter
... Google is totally on board with it, but I have to make some plum changes, for superscript and subscript
... We do not need an editors note

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/Plans-regarding-role-parity#sub-sup-subscript-role-superscript-role-needs-1-implementation-which-is-in-process

MK: I am a little lost on where we are at in the wiki page

JN: We are SUB and SUP, Joanie has one done and she is working with Google on another, with no editors note because it will be done by end of this week
... Group ok?
... Time role

JD: It is already in webkit and I don't have a review from google, but it is ready to go

JN: anyone disagree?
... label/filedset is for 1.3
... Next is code

JD: It is already in webkit and is in the same patch as time for google

MK: Does time have a role?

JD: Yes

MK: We have time and timer?

JD: yes
... Should we not cherry pick time yet?

JN: We are ok with code?

JD: Yes

JN: Strong and em roles

JD: Same path as others for google

JN: The last one is associatelist

JD: There is still some work on this, JC doesn't like the name
... JC is just looking at the names
... James Tay is also has concerns about the name

JN: I suggest we move to 1.3

MK: Pull it out of APG?

JN: Yes

MK: Is this an official decision?

JN: It is official unless there are concerns

JD: I can find the issue, I don't have concern concerns
... First step is go to AAM and then I get the API owners to bless it
... The current mapping are to TERM and DEFINITION

JG: We discusses all this stuff

JN: We don't have any implementation

MK: We don't have implementations or mappings, we have to move it

JD: I am pretty sure I can solve the AAM problem, we have a burning desire to get stuff done

MK: Nobody is going to use these

JN: They can get done next week if we can
... But not today
... Is that all?

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/1.2-Non-editorial-features-and-other-changes

JD: yes, we are adding new rules

JN: We have group role issue in APG

MK: We are good on that

JN: Time in APG

MK: We are waiting to merge

JD: I am going to cherry pick that one

N: Progress bar

JJN: I suspect we do not need that

JN: We don't need it for APG
... We need tests and implementations?

JD: I am not going to cherry pick today

<pkra> +1

JN: braille roles to 1.3
... aria row index and column index, APG?

MK: Almost done

<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1102

JD: JT has implementation issues

JN: If it doesn't make it we need to remove from APG
... We can put in an editors note about it being in 1.3

MK: we could do something like that

JD: JT filed an issue on implementation, I don't have mappings for apple, not clear about JC

J: Move to 1.3

JN: Leave as at risk properties that are being removed
... MC can you look at that before I merge, I sent it to list

MC: I need to find it

JN: Name from content no longer supported on rowgroup, needs test and implementations

<harris> sorry everyone. I've got to drop off early today

JD: I think I may have done that, there may be some macOS issues
... Let's saty with 1.2

JN: Prohibity name from certain roles, tests and implementations

JD: There is some language on returing early

JN: I thought this was primarily for authors

MK: When accname has its next version there would be a change

<joanie> Set the root node to the given element, the current node to the root node, and the total accumulated text to the empty string (""). If the root node's role prohibits naming, return the empty string ("").

JD: We have no direct references in ACCNAME
... It says return the empty strng

JN: I remember now

JD: Until ACCNAME goes to rec we don't have to test

JN: Are people comfortable doing that?

JD: Bottom line is moving ACCNAME seperately from other specs

MC: As long as there are no dependencies

JD: I am going to cherry pick
... Value interface, there needs to be a value like -1, we need to add to AAM what happens when there is not a value
... All the Accessibility APIS have value properties
... You have to return a value, but when there is not value what should it return
... Input type none, is usually a text interface

JN: This going to deep
... This is a 1.3 issue

JD: Yes

JN: Remove aria-level on tablist

JD: Write the editors note

JN: Same with the next ones

JD: I am going to update the wiki to indicate which ones need eidtors note

JN: I will draft the editors note for review

JD: We need to coordinate on notes and implementation

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+-label%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3AWIP

zakim. next item

Remaining Open PRs for ARIA 1.2 (including Combo Box discussion)

<MarkMccarthy> s/prohibity/prohibit

JN: braile description we have already discussed

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+-label%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3AWIP

JN: MK you need to review caption role

MK: It just showed up

JN: There are 5 and ....
... I concentrate on COMBOBOX
... What are we going to do?

MK: It is kind of an interesting one, the APG work is done, it does not require any mapping changes, so no browser changes, its weirdly editorial, but far from editorial
... We have microsofts blessing that in e-mail, but not the PR
... I am not sure if JC has reviewed it, they have had opportunities
... We need the right stakeholders, maybe that is part of the wide review, and see what happens
... Are you comfortable with that

JN: I just want CB to be done

MK: me too

JN: Is APG done?

MK: Yes

JN: MC what is the procedure?

MK: You can see the list of changes at the top of the PR
... It is editorial changes

JN: Editorial changes to support the definitions

MC: If there could be controversy there should be an editors note

JN: Are you comfortable with the editors note

MK: It is all in the spec

JN: We just have a new example

MK: We have it in a branch
... If these goes forward we will remove the old examples

JD: Can I see a diff

JN: It is in a block, properties...

MK: There is a diff in the pull request 1051

JD: If we think we are good to go, this is all under combobox?

MK: Combobox and activedescendant

<Jemma_> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1051

MK: Combobox would not be a composite it would be on input

JD: I will go with what the group thinks, from a practical standpoint, we do not have a lot going in that section, concerned about conflicts in merging
... It will not go into wide review?

MK: Presentational children is complete unrelated

JN: I have to leave now

JD: Someone needs to deal with the merge conflicts

Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version 1.154 (CVS log<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2019/10/24 18:01:10 $
________________________________
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56

Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/



Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)



Succeeded: s/JDL/JD:/

Succeeded: s/Jonanie?/Joanie?/

Succeeded: s/apple may not be/apple will be/

Succeeded: s/inthe/in the/

Succeeded: s/MK/MK:/

Succeeded: s/supscript/subscript/

Succeeded: s/N:/JN:/

Succeeded: s/donw/done/

Succeeded: s/imp,emtation/implementation/

Succeeded: s/foir/for/

FAILED: s/prohibity/prohibit/

Succeeded: s/thik/think/

Succeeded: s/accnam/accname/

Succeeded: s/comfortabl/comfortable/

Succeeded: s/barilee/braile/

Succeeded: s/remeber/remember/

Succeeded: s/implemtations/implementations/

Succeeded: s/chnage/change/

Succeeded: s/proceedure?/procedure?/

Succeeded: s/shildren/children/

Succeeded: s/secion/section/

Present: pkra jamesn MarkMccarthy Joanmarie_Diggs jongund MichaelC harris CurtBellew Bryan_Garaventa Matt_King Jemma_

Regrets: CarolynMacLeod

Found Scribe: jongund

Inferring ScribeNick: jongund

Found Date: 24 Oct 2019

People with action items:



WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.

You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.





WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this

warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain

a link to the original IRC log.)




[End of scribe.perl<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> diagnostic output]