IRC log of aria-apg on 2016-02-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:58:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
17:58:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/29-aria-apg-irc
17:58:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #aria-apg
17:58:20 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Jump for joy to celebrate leap day 2016!!!
17:58:20 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Complete review of section 2.31 Tab Panel http://w3c.github.io/aria/practices/aria-practices.html#tabpanel
17:58:20 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Review latest revision of landmark section proposal (John) https://rawgit.com/jongund/aria/master/practices/aria-practices.html#aria_landmark
17:58:20 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Review section 2.2 Accordion http://w3c.github.io/aria/practices/aria-practices.html#accordion
17:58:21 [jamesn]
Agenda+ Update pattern work assignments and status https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/Aria-Authoring-Practices-Patterns-Status
17:58:27 [jamesn]
meeting: WAI-PF ARIA Authoring Practices Guide Taskforce
17:58:36 [jamesn]
chair: JamesNurthen
17:58:44 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make log world
17:58:50 [LJWatson]
LJWatson has joined #aria-apg
17:58:57 [annabbott]
annabbott has joined #aria-apg
17:59:11 [MichielBijl]
present+ LJWatson Michiel_Bijl Jemma_Ku
17:59:11 [jamesn]
present+ JamesNurthen
17:59:39 [LJWatson]
present+ LJWatson
17:59:51 [MichielBijl]
present- LJWatson
18:00:30 [annabbott]
present+ AnnAbbott
18:00:30 [jamesn]
agenda?
18:03:04 [jongund]
jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:06:09 [MichielBijl]
scribe: MichielBijl
18:06:59 [MichielBijl]
Zakim, next item
18:06:59 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Jump for joy to celebrate leap day 2016!!!" taken up [from jamesn]
18:07:12 [MichielBijl]
zakim, take up item 3
18:07:12 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Review latest revision of landmark section proposal (John) https://rawgit.com/jongund/aria/master/practices/aria-practices.html#aria_landmark" taken up [from jamesn]
18:07:37 [MichielBijl]
JN: Ann + Jon, can you take us through this?
18:07:45 [MichielBijl]
AA: We did a whole lot of editing here.
18:08:01 [MichielBijl]
JG: There is no table of contents anymore
18:08:13 [MichielBijl]
JN: looks a bit shorter too, which is good
18:08:21 [jemma_]
jemma_ has joined #aria-apg
18:08:36 [MichielBijl]
JN: Saw a proposal, JG would create some sort of example
18:08:45 [MichielBijl]
JG: That's too come
18:08:55 [MichielBijl]
JG: People working on patterns can help
18:09:06 [jemma_]
present+ jemmajaeunku
18:09:54 [MichielBijl]
JN: Much easier to understand
18:10:05 [MichielBijl]
JN: How are we on normative language?
18:10:10 [MichielBijl]
AA: Where are you looking?
18:10:19 [MichielBijl]
JN: Step 3 “name a specific region”
18:10:24 [MichielBijl]
AA: That's from the spec
18:10:39 [MichielBijl]
JN: Okay, then I guess we can do that.
18:11:09 [MichielBijl]
JN: It's not the same for all of them is it?
18:11:15 [MichielBijl]
AA: I'd have to dive into each one
18:11:46 [MichielBijl]
Relevant text from APG: If a specific landmark role is used more than once on a web page, it must have a unique label.
18:12:05 [MichielBijl]
JG: Not in role=region
18:12:16 [MichielBijl]
JN: Can we change that to a should?
18:12:24 [MichielBijl]
JG: Yes
18:12:35 [MichielBijl]
AA: then we don't have to back it up with the spec right?
18:12:40 [MichielBijl]
JN: That's reasonable.
18:14:00 [annabbott]
Step 3 > first bullet: change "must" to "should"
18:15:24 [MichielBijl]
JN: Should someone create their own aria-label instead of referencing a visual label?
18:16:18 [MichielBijl]
AA: No point in adding verbosity to screen readers
18:16:27 [MichielBijl]
MB: I agree
18:17:41 [bgaraventa1979]
bgaraventa1979 has joined #aria-apg
18:18:02 [bgaraventa1979]
present+ Bryan_Garaventa
18:18:04 [MichielBijl]
LW: Duplication can get a bit tiresome
18:18:37 [MichielBijl]
JN: I'm okay with that
18:19:06 [MichielBijl]
JG: Leave it the way it is?
18:19:09 [MichielBijl]
JN: Yes
18:19:44 [MichielBijl]
JN: Design patterns of the banners
18:20:05 [MichielBijl]
JN: Why does that banner need to have a unique label?
18:20:36 [MichielBijl]
Bullet four: If a page includes more than one banner landmark, each should have a unique label (see Step 3 above).
18:21:22 [MichielBijl]
JN: Happy leaving it like this
18:21:51 [MichielBijl]
MB: I'm fine with that too
18:22:10 [MichielBijl]
JN: Fine with complementry
18:23:50 [MichielBijl]
JG: Is bullet two of 2.3.1. banner, Techniques row in the table true?
18:24:25 [MichielBijl]
LW: Might be true, might be easier to say it's only a banner role if it's scoped to the body element
18:24:40 [jamesn]
If not a descendant of an article or section element role=banner, otherwise No corresponding role
18:25:25 [jamesn]
https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/
18:26:25 [MichielBijl]
MB: So would a header element within a <div role="document"> get role=banner?
18:26:30 [MichielBijl]
JN: Not sure
18:26:42 [MichielBijl]
JN: This is written backwards
18:26:54 [MichielBijl]
LW: Been battering Steve about that.
18:27:57 [MichielBijl]
JG: Should be restrictive
18:28:13 [MichielBijl]
JG: We want to make it harder to create role=banner landmarks
18:28:24 [MichielBijl]
JG: Mailed Steve Faulkner about it, he agreed.
18:28:53 [MichielBijl]
JN: Want to test this for accuracy
18:29:02 [MichielBijl]
JG: There was a testing meeting earlier today
18:29:08 [MichielBijl]
JN: This is HTML 5 testing
18:29:20 [MichielBijl]
LW: Yes, host language defines how this is defined
18:30:10 [MichielBijl]
LW: That's why I suggested to take down the focus on HTML in this document
18:30:17 [MichielBijl]
LW: Focus more on ARIA
18:30:49 [MichielBijl]
JG: Not a service to developers if we ignore HTML
18:31:03 [MichielBijl]
LW: Not ignore it but this is ARIA practices, not HTML practices
18:31:22 [MichielBijl]
JN: I agree, we need a way for people to find the correct HTML information
18:31:42 [MichielBijl]
AA: Does the HTML spec contain this information?
18:32:12 [MichielBijl]
s/contain this information/state that you get role=banner with this?/
18:32:37 [MichielBijl]
AA: Do we want to ask developers to look at three documents?
18:34:13 [MichielBijl]
JN: Realistic I kind of agree with everyone, not sure we have the bandwidth to maintain.
18:34:22 [MichielBijl]
JN: Steve has already documented this in his doucment
18:34:48 [MichielBijl]
JN: Either we have to maintain it ourself, or point at Steve's document
18:35:12 [MichielBijl]
AA: if you use the header element and you put role="banner" on it, what happens?
18:36:24 [MichielBijl]
Link to W3C validator: http://validator.w3.org/nu/
18:37:57 [jamesn]
Can we just link to https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#header
18:37:57 [MichielBijl]
JG: Why do we want to make it harder for developers?
18:38:02 [MichielBijl]
JG: I disagree
18:38:21 [MichielBijl]
JN: Can we link directly to HTML in ARIA document?
18:40:40 [MichielBijl]
LW: There is a lot of information about this out there
18:41:08 [MichielBijl]
JN: consensus seems to be to de-emphasise the HTML 5 information
18:41:25 [MichielBijl]
JN: Is that what you're suggesting Léonie?
18:41:27 [MichielBijl]
LW: Yes
18:41:42 [MichielBijl]
AA: I need to agree with Jon
18:41:51 [MichielBijl]
AA: We're trying to make a one stop shop here
18:42:25 [MichielBijl]
JG: Let's not disconnect the information from the relevance.
18:42:41 [LJWatson]
The table here could be included as a simple reference for HTML... https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2013/02/using-wai-aria-landmarks-2013/
18:44:43 [MichielBijl]
LW: 2.1 should be moved to the bottom of this section
18:44:54 [MichielBijl]
LW: It's the APG, not the HPG
18:45:42 [MichielBijl]
LW: I'd be happy to create a comparative version
18:46:03 [MichielBijl]
AA: I just know that day-to-day I work with people not involved with standards work
18:46:24 [MichielBijl]
AA: They are clueless about this information or where to find it
18:46:51 [MichielBijl]
LW: That's why I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting
18:47:05 [MichielBijl]
LW: Put it in a single place
18:47:12 [MichielBijl]
AA: They might only come for role=banner
18:50:51 [MichielBijl]
AA: We have a problem in contentinfo
18:50:57 [MichielBijl]
AA: Talking about footer
18:51:07 [MichielBijl]
AA: In all three bullets for techniques.
18:51:14 [MichielBijl]
JN: What's the problem?
18:51:27 [MichielBijl]
JG: Footer creates contentinfo
18:51:30 [MichielBijl]
AA: Oh, sorry
18:51:33 [MichielBijl]
JN: Okay
18:51:52 [MichielBijl]
JN: Looking at 2.3.4. for form
18:52:02 [MichielBijl]
JN: Not sure why we have the first bullet point
18:52:29 [MichielBijl]
JG: It's from the specification
18:52:57 [MichielBijl]
“Whenever possible, controls contained in a form landmark should use native host semantics:”
18:53:03 [MichielBijl]
JN: Can we move that to the bottom?
18:53:05 [MichielBijl]
JG: Yes
18:53:13 [MichielBijl]
JN: Maybe not
18:53:53 [MichielBijl]
JN: If the same set of links is repeated on the page
18:54:38 [MichielBijl]
JN: Don't think I agree with that
18:55:11 [MichielBijl]
JN: If they contain the same information they should have the same label
18:55:14 [MichielBijl]
MB: I agree with that
18:55:46 [MichielBijl]
JN: Only issue is that users might think they are looping through the same element or have returned to the top of the list of elements
18:55:54 [MichielBijl]
JN: copy 1, copy 2 just sounds weird
18:56:07 [MichielBijl]
JG: Is there any guidance on redundancy?
18:57:04 [MichielBijl]
JN: Don't know what the best practice is, but don't like copy n as part of the label?
18:57:14 [MichielBijl]
JN: Maybe top navigation, side navigation etc
18:57:20 [MichielBijl]
AA: That's a violation of WCAG 2.0
18:57:28 [MichielBijl]
JN: Hmm, not sure (?)
18:57:50 [MichielBijl]
JG: Léonie what would you like to see?
18:58:20 [MichielBijl]
LW: Same label sounds good
18:58:39 [MichielBijl]
AA: Wouldn't that be confusing if you go through the list of landmarks?
18:58:56 [MichielBijl]
LW: Not sure it would matter if I was looking for navigation
18:59:39 [MichielBijl]
LW: Different version numbers would make me curious as to what the difference is
18:59:51 [MichielBijl]
JG: So better to use same label for each?
18:59:55 [MichielBijl]
LW: Yeah
19:00:30 [MichielBijl]
JN: We often have next/prev buttons, and we label them the same as they have the same function, even if they appear multiple times on the same page
19:00:47 [MichielBijl]
AA: Might be hard for checking tools
19:00:56 [MichielBijl]
JN: Yeah, but we're not writing for checking tools
19:01:05 [MichielBijl]
AA: No, I know, but Jon asked what I thought.
19:01:26 [MichielBijl]
JK: What is the use case for multiple navigation?
19:02:21 [MichielBijl]
MB: Maybe lists of links to different pages on a website in the header that reappears in the footer?
19:05:02 [MichielBijl]
*scribe passed out*
19:05:14 [jemma_]
*lol
19:05:28 [MichielBijl]
JG: If it's not clear to ourselves, we're not clear to others
19:05:42 [MichielBijl]
JN: We have something now that is helpful to people in general
19:05:51 [MichielBijl]
JN: Great work Jon and Ann, thank you
19:06:31 [MichielBijl]
JG: Trisa Boers helped out a lot
19:07:18 [MichielBijl]
Zakim, take on item 1
19:07:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take on item 1', MichielBijl
19:07:34 [annabbott]
Correction: Teresa Boers
19:07:47 [MichielBijl]
s/Trisa/Teresa/
19:07:58 [jongund]
JN: We just start discussing tabpanels
19:08:21 [MichielBijl]
Zakim, take on item 1
19:08:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take on item 1', MichielBijl
19:08:25 [jongund]
JN: checking bugzilla for issues
19:08:30 [MichielBijl]
Zakim, take up item 1
19:08:30 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Jump for joy to celebrate leap day 2016!!!" taken up [from jamesn]
19:08:32 [jemma_]
s/*lol/*lol*/
19:08:38 [MichielBijl]
Zakim, take up item 2
19:08:38 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Complete review of section 2.31 Tab Panel http://w3c.github.io/aria/practices/aria-practices.html#tabpanel" taken up [from jamesn]
19:08:56 [jongund]
JN: We have been through some of it before
19:09:00 [jamesn]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28993
19:10:07 [jongund]
JN: We dicided to do that (pageup and page down)
19:10:36 [jongund]
JN: We have been through the top section and made changes, and we removed stuff from...
19:10:54 [jongund]
JN: MB did you lookup the control+up arrow stuff
19:11:22 [MichielBijl]
MB: I can't recall agreeing to look at that
19:11:24 [jongund]
MB: un intelligible
19:11:39 [jongund]
MB: Iam still here
19:12:49 [jongund]
JN: We should not say you have to do it
19:13:08 [jongund]
JN: We decided to drop control+PageUp and PageDn
19:13:27 [jongund]
JN: People can do it, but we won't recommend a set of controls
19:13:57 [jongund]
AA: Droping control+up arrow?
19:14:09 [jongund]
JN: You shift+tab back to the tablist
19:14:21 [jongund]
AA: You are saying
19:14:51 [jongund]
AA: Once you are in the tabpanel, shift+tab will take you tot he tab if you press it enough
19:15:04 [jongund]
LW: That works in software interface
19:15:19 [jongund]
JN: If someone whats a quicker way, they can do so
19:15:30 [jongund]
AA: As long as it is discoverable
19:15:54 [jongund]
JN: The discover ability is going to depend on the app
19:16:13 [jongund]
AA: There is lots tab panels, and tabs, and people are not trained on them
19:16:36 [jongund]
LW: Thats why it is important to emulate other software patterns (i.e. Windows)
19:17:10 [jongund]
JN: You can still add the functions, and in some cases it is highly desirable
19:17:33 [jongund]
JN: Not a good design flow, but adding a keystroke they don't know will help
19:17:39 [jongund]
AA: Agreed
19:17:51 [jongund]
JN: Do you have any implemenations
19:18:52 [jongund]
JG: We have an example, but it gets really complicated, I am glasd its gone
19:19:17 [jongund]
JN: There was an issue in Github on this as well
19:20:15 [jongund]
JN: Why ALT+Delete and not just Delete
19:20:37 [jongund]
JN: At Oracle when you are on a tab ou can just press delete
19:20:55 [jongund]
AA: What has focus?
19:21:11 [jongund]
JN: When focus is on the tab itself
19:21:31 [jongund]
JN: That is why it is ALT+Delete in the spec, but we did not like it
19:21:41 [jongund]
JN: Has anyone implemented it?
19:21:44 [jamesn]
http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jet/uiComponents-tabs-addRemove.html
19:21:47 [jongund]
LW: I have not seen it
19:21:53 [jongund]
AA: No
19:22:14 [jongund]
JN: Link is to an example of a deletable tab
19:22:53 [jongund]
JB: Can you focus the x
19:23:13 [jongund]
JN: You can only focus the tab and use the delete key to remove
19:24:39 [jongund]
JN: I am happy to leave ALT+Delete as long with the Delete on the tab option
19:24:45 [jongund]
AA: There is more text in there
19:25:29 [MichielBijl]
+1
19:25:44 [jongund]
JN: Can we talk about not deleting tabs
19:26:05 [jongund]
JG: I think we should have techniques
19:26:34 [jongund]
JG: We can build some examples for the APG
19:27:16 [jamesn]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/206
19:27:22 [jongund]
JN: SHould tab panels activate on focus? Was raised on Github
19:27:39 [jongund]
JN: Some times we do not want the arrow key to change the tab
19:28:04 [jongund]
JN: There are more complex web apps, that moving focus to a new tab is problematic
19:28:08 [jongund]
AA: I agree
19:28:30 [jongund]
JN: I agree and the people commenting on the bug agree to
19:29:09 [jongund]
JN: When application does not respond in a timely way, it can be a problem
19:29:29 [jongund]
JN: There are problems sometimes moving the focus
19:30:18 [jongund]
JN: Allowing space or other key to navigate a tab
19:30:38 [jongund]
JN: I think it is OK from a WCAG perspective either way
19:30:43 [jongund]
LW: I think it is OK
19:31:03 [jongund]
JN: I will write a proposal on this using space or enter
19:31:06 [jongund]
LW: Thanks
19:31:14 [bgaraventa1979]
yes
19:31:17 [jongund]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:31:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/29-aria-apg-minutes.html jongund
22:03:44 [LJWatson]
LJWatson has joined #aria-apg
23:42:21 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #aria-apg