Fw: Agenda: July 30, 2015 WAI-PF ARIA Caucus (from Joanie)

Rich Schwerdtfeger
----- Forwarded by Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM on 07/30/2015 11:58 AM
-----

From:	Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
To:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Michael Cooper
            <cooper@w3.org>
Date:	07/30/2015 11:29 AM
Subject:	Re: Agenda: July 30, 2015 WAI-PF ARIA Caucus



Hey Rich and Michael.

Today is another one of those all-hands meetings. The good news is that
the Assembly seems pleased with my work (which means they'll continue to
fund my time). The bad news is that the meeting looks like it will
extend into the time of our ARIA call. Hopefully, I'll just be late.

Because of this, let me point out some things wrt the current agenda:

>     3. Action 1488: Indeterminate set size Joanie
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1488
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/397

You'll find in the action comment a detailed explanation of what I did,
complete with a link to the commit (in a new branch) and a link to the
resulting spec text.

Aside from any other feedback the group may have, we should find out a
couple of things:

1. Did those people (like Cynthia) who indicated they "prefer" -1
   accept 999+, or does preferring the former mean rejecting the latter?

2. If the group wants to use (or include) 999+, do we need to change the
   value's type? Currently it's an integer, and obviously "999+" is not.
   I tried to dance around this in my proposed text with the "MAY append
   a plus sign ("+") to the value". But I'm not sure if that's enough.

If I'm not able to attend in time for this agenda item, please leave the
action open, add anything I should do in the summary, are reset the
status from pending review back to open.

>     4. Action 1498: Term Role Joanie
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/657
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1498

Pretty basic proposal with links for branch commit and spec view in the
action comment.

The one point of discussion I anticipate is my statement about not using
the term role for a link. That is there because I can imagine a glossary
or similar structure where the term is a link. Using the term role will
mean that the link role is lost. Maybe losing it is ok, and ATs should
do additional checks to see if the term has a URI, click action, etc.
Personally I don't think so, hence my text.

As above, updating the action with anything the group wants me to do
would be appreciated.

>     5. aria-level a required attribute for role heading
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1657
>       o https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/683

As indicated in the action, the change is made already in master but I
haven't closed the action yet because I had a question (explained in the
action). If the group thinks no further changes should be made, then
that action can be closed (preferably with a comment indicating why it
was closed, i.e. the group has considered my question and considered not
to proceed).

Sorry and thanks!
--joanie

(P.S. When we're officially a working group, can we revisit the meeting
time? Igalia's all-hands don't appear to be changing days. And they're
frequent enough....)