MINUTES: ARIA Working Group Teleconference - 2020-05-07

Link:
https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html



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

- DRAFT -
ARIA WG
07 May 2020
Attendees
Present
jamesn, Joanmarie_Diggs, MarkMccarthy, StefanSchnabel, carmacleod, jongund, harris, BGaraventa, Jemma, jcraig, Matt_King
Regrets
pkra, CurtBellew
Chair
JamesNurthen
Scribe
jongund
Contents

  *   Topics<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#agenda>
     *   Meeting Survey results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83726/meetingTimes/results<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#item01>
     *   ARIA 1.2 Open Issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.2%22<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#item02>
     *   Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#item03>
     *   When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description? https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#item04>
  *   Summary of Action Items<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  *   Summary of Resolutions<https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-aria-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

________________________________

<aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria

<scribe> scribe: jongund

Meeting Survey results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83726/meetingTimes/results


JK: : Discussion with Joanie, it seems like meeting before works

MK: I should have voted, I can't meet before

JN: ARIA regular meeting would be an hour earlier and the extra time would be at the current time with a 15 minute break

AL: We are not making a decision now, we are still collecting data

MK: When are you thinking of making the change?
... I would miss the meeting every other week

AL: You can't miss otherwise we will change combobox

JN: MK we need you to attend, maybe we just switch the times, and have the other meeting before
... I like it since we need to think about an in depth topic a week to think about

MK: My other meeting has more senior people, so it is a hard ask

<Jemma> James, are you going to send out the agenda for next week?

<Jemma> one before regular one.

JN: For now we leave the current meeting where it is and the extra meeting before with a forced break of 15 minutes

SB: will the meeting IDs change?

JN: It will probably have the same meeting ID

MK: Who will set the deep dive topic

<Jemma> I will miss first part of meeting for 30 min.

JN: I will put the topic of a deep dive on the agenda for discusion

MK: If I don't resolve the conflict I can ask for a delay of one week

JN: We need to have prep time

MK: It may not happen every week

https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1263


https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1257


<jcraig> FYI, the "meaty" topic I proposed last week: https://mit.zoom.us/j/101412589?pwd=MDRSMmU0Rkh0WnRjbmlZOXlRTzhUQT09


<jcraig> oops... Wrong link

JN: I saw this shortcut feature, it sounds like a really great or terrible idea

<jcraig> FYI, the "meaty" topic I proposed last week: https://w3ccommunity.slack.com/archives/C012QQXV1EH/p1588180882001300


MK: It is a terrible idea and started at Facebook before I got here
... If J is used you don't have J for Jaws

JN: Can MK or SB put something in the issue
... This is a shortcut key feature used by some people
... If you think there is a useful feature related to this, put that in the comment

SB: I think it has been implemented in a bad way

<Stefan_> https://github.com/phetsims/balloons-and-static-electricity/issues/111


SB: The mapping needs to be under the users control

MK: That is an interesting topic, maybe for a deep dive topic

JN: We will put it on ARIA 1.3 issue and make it a deep dive issue at some point

The next 3 issue should be for ARIA 1.3

JN: Someone make them as ARIA 1.3 issues

CM: I will

JN: JC has some related to 1.2

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1261


JN: AL can you review this

JC: JOanie would be another great reviewer

JN: We want Anna or Dominic to sign off as well

JC: Can we add external reviewers?

JN: GitHub does not allow that

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1260


JN: This looks easy

JC: Araon can you look at this too

AL: I will look at it or ALice

JC: I will ask Alice too

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1262


CM: It should be easy to merge
... It needs aria-haspop in 1.2 and the rest could go in 1.3

JN: I have merged typos when I find them

ARIA 1.2 Open Issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.2%22


JN: JC you have PRs for the last two issue

<jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1224


JN: Depreciated globals is ready to merge

MK: I want to talk about JC comments
... To me these are editorial
... This text use to be in AAM and it was moved here
... There was some text in core AAM and joanie moved it here
... We discovered there were some issues with the text, so we are bring the two into alignment

JC: If the working group decides what we need I am fine with it, it is still hard to read
... quotes from the document
... This is leading into a list, it took me a long time to unpack this

JG: There wee some changes after the first PR

MK: In my review I requested some changes, but I thought you would have commented in the first..

JC: If there are problems in existing text I don't usually comment
... These should have been two separate PRs

MK: There was a use of descendant earlier, ....
... It wasn't clear, if you look at previous line 384 ....
... That was suppose to be changes since is was using descendant

JC: I would have expected ...
... The RFC comment is an additional requirement, it should be removed

MK: I agree

JC: If the working group wants to move on

JN: We should not be adding a new requirement
... The last of my comments

MK: I see one on 13318, that you could not see the change

JC: I was wondering if the other substantive change needs platform review
... Line 384...
... We need to mark something as focusable in the accessibility API

AL: There is anotehr one I need to review, it is hard to know if something is focusable using active descendant, we require ...

JN: AL added as a reviewer

JC: If there are some edits before we review them

JN: Remove the should to authors

JC: Use the term attribute, since that what developers think of, rather than property or state

JN: I am not fully aware of how we are doing it throughout the document

MK: If you are talking about a specific ...

<jamesn> Refer to states and properties in prose as "attributes", not as "states" or "properties" in order to be less confusing. (though they're still formally states or properties)

JC: I did a major edit several years ago to make this consistent

JN: I will go through the document to fix them

JC: I don't think we need to do them right now

MK: I want to do it the right way if I am doing a PR

<Jemma> +1 for clear usage of different terms

JC: I will make a new issue to update the style guide

JN: It is already in the style guide

JC: It is already in there

<carmacleod> https://w3c.github.io/aria/#statevsprop


CM: It is also written in the spec, quoting the document

Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69


MK: The thing related to focusable and active descendant, we made this change, for textbox it seems to be working, my previous understnadingm there was not much validation of what active descendant could point to

AL: As long we have language that user agents are not required to check, neither FF or Chrome check, we just check the DOM element for activedescendat

JG: : I can make some updates

JN: JC made some change requests
... Would empty descriptions be allowed?

JC: There a bunch of review comments
... I made them as comments, and there were no changes tot he document, so marked them as blocking to force some response

JN: AL how are we on aria-description?

AL: It did not land?
... I need to finish that, I have been working of fixing real bugs

JN: Can you make some updates?

AL: In the next couple of weeks

JC: I am going to assign AL to the issue

When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description? https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57


JN: Another accname issue
... This label has been on this for a long time

BG: I am trying to read it now
... Nothing has happened recently

JN: A question on what hidden means for computing the accname

MK: This has something to do with implict or explicitly hidden

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57#issuecomment-533815097


MK: If some thing is part of a large hidden block or explicitly hidden element

<Jemma> <div id="1" hidden>My Label</div><input type="text" aria-labelledby="1">

<Jemma> <div hidden><div id="2">My Label</div></div><input type="text" aria-labelledby="2">

MK: There was a condition that an element would not be included because it ancestor is hidden

BG: Whether something is explicitly hidden ot part of a larger hidden was not clear, I don't care just want to know

JN: Comment....

BG: If you have an arria-labelledby that points to something that is hidden, should it make any difference if it is hidden or its parent is hidden in the same way

AL: We currently look at changes in the descendants visibility, so if the referenced element is hidden then all is included, if the parent is visible and a descendant is hidden it is not included

MK: An element that is hidden is a DIV with some text, does it matter in chrome if the the hidden is on the DIV or on an acestor

AL: It doesn't mater now
... if someone wants foo, we give them foo

<Jemma> I think we got the anwer.

<Jemma> from Aron.

MK: It doesn't matter if it is hidden or hidden by an ancestor

JN: If that is consistent across user agents, we just need to make it clear

AL: I need to go over the accname stuff again
... It is more about will I use the node that I am on, if I get there by recurssion....

JN: Can AL look at this issue

AL: I can't do it soon, but it needs to be done, I don't thing

<Jemma> bye everyone.

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: 2020/05/07 18:02:57 $
________________________________
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/aron/aaron/

Present: jamesn Joanmarie_Diggs MarkMccarthy StefanSchnabel carmacleod jongund harris BGaraventa Jemma jcraig Matt_King

Regrets: pkra CurtBellew

Found Scribe: jongund

Inferring ScribeNick: jongund



WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify

the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)

Or specify the date like this:

<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002



People with action items:



WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:

        <aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria







WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:

        <aaronlev> aaaronlev has joined #aria







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]