16:39:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:39:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-aria-irc
16:39:41 <joanie> chair: Joanmarie_Diggs
16:39:41 <joanie> RRSAgent, make log public
16:39:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:39:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #aria
16:39:44 <joanie> agenda?
16:39:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:39:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:39:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference
16:39:46 <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2017
16:40:02 <joanie> agenda+ Identifying at-risk ARIA 1.1 features (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/588)
16:40:13 <joanie> agenda+ Fixing overly-restrictive language related to aria-roledescription (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/500)
16:40:26 <joanie> agenda+ aria-errormessage may need additional normative language in the spec (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/587)
16:40:36 <joanie> agenda+ Exiting and re-entering CR (quickly) to address aforementioned issues?
16:40:46 <joanie> agenda+ ARIA 1.1 "actions / status" check in
16:40:59 <joanie> agenda: be done
16:41:02 <joanie> agenda?
16:41:26 <joanie> scribeOptions: -final
16:41:56 <joanie> joanie has changed the topic to: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md27b4a8f598994e81577a285c4ea80c6 Access code: 641 291 851
16:53:30 <Rich> Rich has joined #aria
16:56:46 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
16:58:07 <Rich> present+Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:06:07 <bgaraventa1979> bgaraventa1979 has joined #aria
17:09:11 <Rich> scribe: Rich
17:09:26 <Rich> zakim takeup item 2
17:09:34 <MichaelC> zakim, take up item 2
17:09:34 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Fixing overly-restrictive language related to aria-roledescription (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/500)" taken up [from joanie]
17:10:07 <Rich> joanie: Matt is familiar with this and was very involved in the discussion
17:10:21 <Rich> joanie: meter became an issue in Safari
17:10:24 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
17:10:48 <Rich> joanie: I asked James Craig if he could create a pull request which he did. He changed some language.
17:10:55 <jongund> present+ jongund
17:11:00 <Rich> joanie: he made a branch
17:11:03 <mck> mck has joined #aria
17:11:54 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/issue-500/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription
17:12:13 <Rich> joanie: this is James Craig’s branch
17:12:30 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/b6d18109404
17:12:49 <Rich> joanie: those are the diffs
17:14:38 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/b6d181094048225f14789f269f3b4dad9ce25b51#commitcomment-22558272
17:16:53 <Rich> scribenick: MichaelC
17:18:20 <MichaelC> mck: meaning known to AT has to be determined by attributes
17:18:44 <MichaelC> rs: ARIA didn´t define role for interactive element
17:18:50 <MichaelC> we have adequate structural elements
17:18:53 <MichaelC> but lack interactive
17:19:32 <MichaelC> so we should say
17:19:52 <MichaelC> @@ roledescription @@ native element @@ platform mapping
17:20:05 <MichaelC> avoid semantically meaningless
17:20:14 <MichaelC> jd: gotta define ¨semantically meaningless¨
17:20:32 <MichaelC> mck: this would change purpose of roledescription
17:20:35 <MichaelC> to fill any role gap
17:20:44 <MichaelC> which is pretty broad scope
17:20:58 <MichaelC> normally if there is a hole in ARIA, we add a role
17:21:43 <MichaelC> allowing roledescription on any element without implicit ARIA role creates slippery slope
17:22:13 <MichaelC> jd: example of text containers
17:22:19 <MichaelC> then we introduce paragraph
17:22:32 <MichaelC> causing <p> to map to paragraph
17:22:36 <MichaelC> would we use roledescription?
17:22:37 <MichaelC> I think not
17:23:06 <MichaelC> mck: others raised the issue, how do you know when to speak the role?
17:23:20 <MichaelC> if it´s used on a generic element where you don´t speak role, such as paragraph
17:23:34 <MichaelC> how do you know when to speak and when not?
17:23:41 <MichaelC> jd: I´ve made assumption authors know what they´re doing
17:23:52 <MichaelC> but in general @@
17:24:26 <MichaelC> mck: I see ARIA as a canvas like CSS, authors can do yucky things with it but we don´t want to limit its scope to prevent that
17:24:48 <MichaelC> also don´t want to limit reasonable creativity
17:25:02 <MichaelC> jg: restrict elements to which it can be applied?
17:25:24 <MichaelC> mck: we don´t control the relevant spec, that´s HTML-AAM
17:25:41 <MichaelC> rs: not an issue for SVG
17:25:46 <MichaelC> for HTML I´d say ¨interactive controls¨
17:26:25 <MichaelC> we´ve got classes of roles
17:26:31 <MichaelC> mck: can see using on certain of those
17:26:50 <MichaelC> so we´d say ¨explicit role required unless interactive element in host language¨
17:26:57 <MichaelC> rs: ¨with implied ARIA semantic¨
17:27:17 <MichaelC> mc: +1
17:27:20 <MichaelC> jd: +1
17:27:27 <MichaelC> updated issue
17:27:49 <joanie> Rich (during meeting) mentioned "host language interactive controls" as a category of things which might not have an explicit or implicit ARIA role, but which should still permit roledescription.
17:27:56 <MichaelC> s/mc:/mck:/
17:28:54 <MichaelC> so we´d be saying explicit roles, implict roles, or host language interactive controls support roledescription
17:29:32 <MichaelC> rs: this should work around ¨semantically meaningless¨ which wasn´t working for us
17:29:48 <MichaelC> zakim, close this item
17:29:48 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
17:29:49 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:29:49 <Zakim> 1. Identifying at-risk ARIA 1.1 features (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/588) [from joanie]
17:29:50 <MichaelC> zakim, take up item 3
17:29:50 <Zakim> agendum 3. "aria-errormessage may need additional normative language in the spec (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/587)" taken up [from joanie]
17:30:19 <MichaelC> jd: went to implement aria-errormessage
17:30:30 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/587
17:30:49 <MichaelC> found it didn´t say enough
17:30:55 <MichaelC> asked questions and wrote proposals in that issue
17:31:58 <MichaelC> mck: pertinent?
17:32:10 <MichaelC> jd: if aria-invalid=true, then error message is pertinent
17:32:27 <MichaelC> if aria-invalid=false, then error message is not pertienent
17:32:36 <MichaelC> s/pertienent/pertinent/
17:32:48 <MichaelC> mck: that´s in the spec?
17:32:51 <MichaelC> jd: yuppers
17:33:11 <MichaelC> mck: see not applicable. does it mean not mapped?
17:33:25 <MichaelC> jd: that´s the problem I´m trying to solve, it didn´t say
17:34:10 <MichaelC> rs: could define it as author error so UA doesn´t have to deal with
17:34:26 <MichaelC> mck: we´re trying to minimize author statements
17:34:31 <MichaelC> rs: also trying to minimize UA burden
17:34:59 <MichaelC> jd: depending on screen reader to do sanity checking means if they don´t all do it, users get inconsistent experience
17:35:23 <MichaelC> mck: yeah, troublesome when I encounter this sort of thing as an author
17:35:56 <joanie>  I would suggest something like, "User agents MUST NOT expose an element as a pertinent error message when the referencing element lacks aria-invalid="true".
17:36:57 <MichaelC> mck: ...
17:37:26 <MichaelC> rs: doing this makes the user experience no worse, at least
17:37:26 <MichaelC> could be should or must
17:38:27 <MichaelC> jd: my version is above
17:38:47 <MichaelC> mck: so when aria-invalid becomes true, ua will add a relationship
17:38:57 <MichaelC> will AT pick that up?
17:39:15 <MichaelC> jd: aria-invalid would change, so a state change event
17:39:26 <MichaelC> also probably other events
17:39:47 <MichaelC> see the next topic in that issue
17:40:11 <MichaelC> about hiding error messages that are not pertinent
17:40:21 <joanie> Authors MUST remove the error message when it is not pertinent, either by removing the element's id from aria-errormessage or by ensuring the referenced element is not rendered or has an aria-hidden value of true.
17:41:18 <MichaelC> so I think most ATs would pick up from one of these events
17:41:53 <MichaelC> mck: situation of aria-hidden yet visible?
17:42:04 <MichaelC> jd: recording...
17:43:33 <MichaelC> rs: @@
17:43:44 <MichaelC> jd: that´s agendum, we´ll come back to it
17:44:02 <MichaelC> <reads updated proposal>
17:44:05 <MichaelC> mck: yes, better
17:45:38 <MichaelC> <but quibbles>
17:45:44 <MichaelC> jd: updated proposal
17:45:47 <MichaelC> mck: great
17:45:49 <joanie> "Authors MUST remove the error message when it is not pertinent, either by removing the aria-errormessage attribute or its value, or by ensuring the referenced element is not rendered."
17:46:34 <MichaelC> jd: I think this is ready to implement in branch and get WG review
17:47:32 <MichaelC> mck: <couple specific details>
17:47:39 <MichaelC> jd: I can make additional test cases
17:47:53 <MichaelC> jg: does IDL have new error message?
17:48:12 <MichaelC> jd: details has two relationships, error message has two relationships
17:48:16 <MichaelC> for a while now
17:48:19 <MichaelC> we need to test that all
17:48:32 <MichaelC> jd: consensus on above proposal?
17:48:59 <MichaelC> mck: where is ¨pertinent¨ defined?
17:49:03 <bgaraventa1979> +1 on proposal
17:49:17 <joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#aria-errormessage
17:49:42 <joanie> If the user enters an invalid value for the object, aria-invalid is set to true to indicate that aria-errormessage is now pertinent. When aria-errormessage is pertinent, authors must ensure the content is not hidden and is included in a container that exposes the content to the user as it is expected that the assistive technology user will navigate to the content in order to access it.
17:51:04 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
17:51:04 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Identifying at-risk ARIA 1.1 features (https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/588)" taken up [from joanie]
17:51:11 <joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/588
17:51:31 <joanie> If items are not marked as at risk, and we don't get implementation, we cannot advance past CR. But my understanding is that marking something as at risk, and then getting implementations, will not cause our advancement to be stalled. Therefore, it seems to me that if we suspect features might be at risk, we should identify them as such.
17:52:36 <MichaelC> jd: based on the above impacts, I suggest marking 3 things as at risk
17:52:55 <MichaelC> particularly if we want more than bare minimum 2 implementations
17:53:08 <MichaelC> which I think we do
17:53:30 <MichaelC> in DPub-AAM CR implementation, the Director asked about breadth of implementation
17:53:38 <MichaelC> so we might want to expand that target
17:54:33 <MichaelC> <summarizes current state of implementations, listed in the issue>
17:55:52 <MichaelC> in sum, windows and mac could lack implementation, so even if we have others we don´t have the dominant platforms
17:56:38 <MichaelC> mck: upside of proceeding anyways is if it gets author traction, UAs more likely to see need to pick up
17:57:30 <MichaelC> jd: ¨at risk¨ doesn´t mean we lose it necessarily
17:57:34 <MichaelC> s/mck: upside of proceeding anyways is if it gets author traction, UAs more likely to see need to pick up//
17:59:50 <MichaelC> mck: if we have minimum now, and mark as at risk, and nothing further happens, we could fail the risk condition even though we´ve implemented
18:00:24 <MichaelC> mc: is question what Director will accept as sufficient, or how to achieve level of implementation we want?
18:00:29 <MichaelC> jd: what Director will accpet
18:00:45 <MichaelC> mc: then we can ask if he thinks we need these risk statements
18:00:51 <MichaelC> jd: please start that conversation
18:01:19 <joanie> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159215
18:04:28 <mck> mck has joined #aria
18:05:35 <MichaelC> rs: we´ve been through this
18:06:52 <MichaelC> would like to proceed on the basis of implementation commitments we´ve gotten
18:13:47 <MichaelC> <more kibbitzing on various consequences of risk statements>
18:22:40 <jongund> Is there any time for me to ask some questions about MSAA and IAccessible2 implementation testing?
18:32:59 <Rich> RRSAgent, make log public
18:33:07 <Rich> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:33:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-aria-minutes.html Rich
18:38:09 <Rich> Rich: Joanie, Matt - the reason we don’t have aria-posinset on rows ands we have aria-rowindex and aria-rowcount
18:38:20 <Rich> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:38:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-aria-minutes.html Rich
22:18:51 <sam> sam has joined #aria
23:35:41 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #aria