Minutes: [aapi] UAI TF Meeting Agenda Thu Jun 13 2013

Link: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/13-aapi-minutes.html

Plain text version follows:


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

            Protocols and Formats Working Group Teleconference
                               13 Jun 2013


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2013Jun/0000.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/06/13-aapi-irc


           Joseph_Scheuhammer, David_Bolter, Cynthia_Shelly




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Last call for UAIG
          2. [6]bug 19772.
          3. [7]ACTION-1200
          4. [8]Last call for UAIG.
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 13 June 2013

    <scribe> scribenick: clown

    <scribe> Chair: Joseph_Scheuhammer

Last call for UAIG

    CS: can we go to last call by next week?
    ... picking a realistic date and stickly with it.
    ... do either of you think next week is feasible

    DB: not really

    JS: no, because I can't make all the edits that we know about
    by then.

    CS: there is a bunch of work items, and then a number of issues
    and actions.
    ... we can go thru them and say "no" (as the default action).

    JS: I have been bringing up some of the issues at the mon
    calls, and it's slow going to get consenus on them, one way or

    CS: the default answer is "no".

    JS: If the default is no, then the due date and/or version
    needs to change.
    ... either they are 1.1 or 2.0 issues and are due at some later

    CS: we could switch them to 1.1 or 2.0, and say can you live
    with that?

    JS: a danger is the public gets to comment on last call.
    ... are these issues going to come back from the public

    CS: they might, but we could still say this is for the next

    JS: David, here is the URL to outstanding issues and actions:
    ... what do you think about Cynthia's suggestion.

      [10] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/products/10

    DB: we could probably do that for a lot of them, but not sure
    about all of them.

bug 19772.


      [11] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19772

    JS: Cynthia, can we close this?


      [12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_role_table

    JS: for UIA express, I put back: "If
    expanded is not "true", expose STATE_SYSTEM_COLLAPSED"

      [13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-expandedhttp://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties

    CS: let me close the bug, or you could.

    JS: closing… nope. can't find my password.

    CS: I'll close it. "resolved/fixed".



    <trackbot> ACTION-1200 -- Cynthia Shelly to create table for
    author errors in UAIG, with columns for each API. -- due
    2013-06-13 -- OPEN


      [14] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1200

    CS: I might have to work on it on the weekend.

    JS: that's fine.
    ... If it helps, I can make the table, if you can give me the

Last call for UAIG.


      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2013Jun/0000.html

    JS: David, you have some actions/issues to deal with before
    last call.
    ... we don't have to do them now, but could you look at them
    and get back to me by email?

    DB: I'll put them in my to-do list.

    JS: So, let's look at the overall issue/action list.


      [16] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/products/10


    <trackbot> ISSUE-486 -- UAIG has some MUST requirements that
    could only be tested in HTML 5, but 1) the ARIA spec is being
    tested only against HTML 4 and we prefer to do the same with
    UAIG, and 2) HTML 5 isn't complete; so we need to deal with
    this in the UAIG CR exit criteria n -- open

    <trackbot> [17]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/486

      [17] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/486

    JS: the only thing that is outstanding, I think, is the mapping
    conflict between html5 native semantics and aria semantics.

    CS: the text was a negotiated selttelement.
    ... I don't think we should remove it.
    ... but see what Michael says.


      [18] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_conflicts

    CS: If Michael thinks we can safely remove it, then we can do
    that. Or make and run the tests.

    JS: I think Michael wants to make the tests.

    DB: I think we sort of have to do more tests.


    <trackbot> ISSUE-551 -- When UAIG enters CR, we need to ask
    Director if we have to have 2 mappings to all platforms, or
    just demonstrate implementability of mapping via a sample and
    say all the mappings are therefore defined implementable --

    <trackbot> [19]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/551

      [19] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/551

    CS: michael action item.

    JS: doesn't change the UAIG

    CS: It might. we might have to merge the UIA and UIA express
    ... we need to wait on the director's response here.
    ... and, that would not happen until July, then.


    <trackbot> ISSUE-552 -- UAIG spec. is inaccurate wrt selection
    events pertaining to aria-selected being applied (MSAA/IA2) --

    <trackbot> [20]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/552

      [20] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/552

    JS: for more information, the issue points to this email:

      [21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2013JanMar/0083.html


      [22] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_events_selection

    JS: the add and remove events happen in a multiselectable
    scenario, according to the UAIG.
    ... Rich references this test case:
    ... here is the test file:
    ... it's a list box with one option in it.
    ... aria-multiselectable (or whatever it's called) is not

      [23] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testcases/edit?testsuite_id=1&testcase_id=672
      [24] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pfwg/raw-file/default/ARIA/1.0/tests/test-files/selected-state/672.html

    DB: I wonder what's default for a list box?

    JS: default for aria-multislectable is false.

    DB: Looks like the test case needs mutli-selectable set.

    JS: so all the test file needs it an
    aria-multiselectable="true" on the listbox container.
    ... looks like you can close your action 1220.

    DB: okay, I can close it.


    <trackbot> ISSUE-559 -- Missing member of relationships -- open

    <trackbot> [25]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/559

      [25] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/559

    JS: the text Rich is talking about is near here:

      [26] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_events_visibility


      [27] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_events_selection

    DB: I think we can add MSAA+IA2 to that bullted list.

    JS: okay, I'll take care of it somewho.


    <trackbot> ISSUE-550 -- Come up with a date to stop editing
    UAIG in preparation for the next Last Call Draft -- closed

    <trackbot> [28]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/550

      [28] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/550


    <trackbot> ISSUE-560 -- MSAA/IA2 spec. inconsistent with
    implementation in FF on aria-activedescendant -- open

    <trackbot> [29]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/560

      [29] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/560

    CS: this whole focus and ad thing, we had lots of discussion
    ... we should not re-open. Let's move this to 2.0.

    Resolved: change issue-560 product to Aria 2.0

    JS: noting that the test case is currently failing.

    CS: I think the problem is that the negotiated solution is not
    consistent with the implementation in either FF nor IE.
    ... there is a test case is failing. What do we do?

    DB: I think we ended up softening the wording.

    CS: is there any way we can soften the test case.


      [30] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testcases/edit?testsuite_id=1&testcase_id=190

    JS: quoting the expected result: Accessible with id='test' has

    Does not expose STATE_SYSTEM_FOCUSED, AND

    Accessible with id='obj1' exposes STATE_SYSTEM_FOCUSABLE and

    DB: that makes sense to me for FF

    JS: here the test file:

      [31] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pfwg/raw-file/default/ARIA/1.0/tests/test-files/roles-properties-supported/roles-properties-supported-group-aria-activedescendant-obj1.html

    CS: it passes in IE.
    ... David, it looks like you have a bug.
    ... it has a pass for FF in the test report.


      [32] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testreport?testsuite_id=1


      [33] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testresults?testsuite_id=1&testcase_id=190

    <davidb> passes in IE and FF

    JS: looks like Rich passed it.
    ... making note in issue to ask rich about it.
    ... it's listed as aria 2.0. Why is ther a 1.0 test case then?

    CS: next meeting is Jul 11
    ... do you think we can get through the rest on the next
    ... could we do a 2 hour meeting next time?

    DB: I can't make the 11th.
    ... I could have a meeting w/ Joseph betfore then, while you
    are on vacation.

    JS: let's meet next at noon EDT/9am PDT for an hour on Jul 2nd.

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [34]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([35]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-06-13 18:06:00 $

      [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
              - J. D. Klaun -

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 18:13:49 UTC