<joanie> agenda: this
<joanie> agenda: be done
<inserted> scribe: jongund
JD: Next week the meeting changes, it will be an hour earlier
MC: 1 hour earlier
JD: Just for next week
<joanie> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Spring_2018
JD: Confirmed dates and
times
... Mostly topics I want and topics that Matt wants
... Add your items to the wiki
... If you are planning or not planning on coming please use
the wiki
MC: We do a web based survey usually
JD: What MC said, please make ASAP
MC: I am setting up the survey now
JD: I am new to the planning
event, thank you MC for doing the survey
... Any other questions?
<joanie> https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/publish/index-CR-20180215.html
JD: There are some web platform specs we need to look at/review
<joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2018Mar/0009.html
JD: We are being acsked to review
it
... APA is asking, the goal is to maximize accessibility
... It is mostly about authors and conformance checking
... I am hoping that the APG look at this
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say PLH is on the phone for this topic
JD: and when
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to clarify
Phillipe: There is a request to move document to CR
Pilliipe: Tell us it is fine, that would be good, if not what needs to be changed
Phillipe: If there are problems, we need to know, it may not block the document, because it is late in the process
JD: We should use the que for this
Stefan: When I scan the document,
I have no idea of the long history of this document, were ARIA
wG members a part of creating the document
... Picture has no corresponding role, so where do we ask
questions?
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to help on the origin
Phillipe: My understanding is this use to be part of HTML, and it was split for some reason, I don't know why
<janina> Was split away because there was desire to modularize html, as I recall
Phillipe: If you have comments or questions, use the GitHub issues
<MichaelC> 1) Does ARIA WG want to (re-)review ARIA in HTML? 2) How long would it take? 3) Does the ARIA WG think the spec should wait on that review before it advances to CR?
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to break down questions and to explain HTML AAM part of question
Phillipe: I want to know what I need to tell the director?
MC: Does the ARIA want to review
ARIA in HTML?
... How long will it take for the review?
... Does the spec need to wait for the review
JD: I think the answer is based
on the APG can do it
... I don;t want to penalize them but our delay in review
it
... If we are going to review we need to do it immediately
<mck> /me, jon how about i take over at end of topic
MC: I don't think we messed up, we just delivered less than ideal
<bgaraventa1979> +q
MK: I don't have time right now
do to my schedule, CSUN and vacation
... the importance is based on the changes form the last
review, conformance with ARIA 1.1 ..
Phillipe: It is about how not to use ARIA, if we stop this it will damage ARIA
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask about testing
JD: I have not seen on the chairs list, they do not plan to test
Phillipe: They are mostly
negative tests, basically you do not do this
... Should we test we do not get an invalid mapping
JD: How error mapping is mapping
MC: Listed specs where test would come from
JD: Is it Mike Smith that writes the validator, he often finds problems in ARIA and files bugs
BG: I can actually do a review
next week, I think it is important
... I can reply to the list
JN: I think we should do it, but I don't have time
JG: I will try to review if by next week
Stephen: This seems to be an important for the rules
Stefan: You can have the
impression reading this document, you never need to use ARIA at
all
... There is a lack of completeness, do we form a common
report, or should we report separately
JD: Leonie is a github fan
Phillipe: I recommend that you put issue on GitHub
JD: Stefan, the spec is about things you can't do, that the validator needs to flag it
Stefan: You need to understand ARIA to read this document..
Phillipe: I did not read it that way, it is not to define the roles
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to give an example
Phillipe: I will give you an example, you can use any ARIA role on a table, we find that strange
Stefan: This document should
describe proper role mappings
... It seems gird should be aloowed
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about ¨official review¨ and to mention upversions
<mck> scribe: mck
mc: one thing we are being asked is whether we want an official wg review. do we want a process for that?
<jongund> MC: Ok, official review, is it a working group review, or just individual reviews
or do we just want to separately put issues in github?
<Zakim> joanie, you wanted to say why not use another role on a table? :) and to also say that what Stefan is saying sounds like authoring practices
mc: specs can be upversioned. issues we file could be in a future version.
<jongund> MC: If we file issues, they may be considered in a future version
jd: I like michael's up versioning idea b/c we are so late in the game.
<jongund> JD: I like MC up versioning, since we are this late in the game
if I was chair and blocked this late in the game, I would not like that. I would be understand but not like it.
<jongund> JD: Why not turn table into a button, it sounds like a bad thing, but if the browser does things reight will it be that bad
jd: I also want to say that we need to be careful not to be overlimiting. I can imagine that there might be a situation where someone could use button on table. if authored correctly, why not.
if it is best practice to do that could be addressed in practices rather than in spec.
<jongund> JD: If it is bad practice to put button on table, that should be part of APG
<jongund> JD: We risk holding up a spec, on issues that should not be part of the spec
stefan: I hear you. it may be best practices related. but still valuable if spec authors ask questions to this group when it is not clear.
<jongund> Stefan: When people ...
<jongund> Phillipe: the WG does not have any questions, they just want to move to CR
phillipe: that do not have questions for this group. they are requesting review to see if we have questions or comments for them.
<jongund> scribe: jongund
<mck> Worse case scenario is that the spec allows a role on an html element that you really should not use.
JD: Getting back to question Phillipe and MC asked
<mck> jd: back to michael's question. Will this be a wg review frm aria or separate review reviews by aria wg members.
JD: Do we want an official review of the group or individual
<mck> bg: I would rather get it done as myself rather than rep the group.
<mck> jg? I can do by next week too.
<mck> jd: is rest of group ok with them doing individual reviews vs a group review?
<mck> mc: fine with that.
JD: The WG is grateful to BG and JG for doing the rview, but it will not be a working group review or blessing
<mck> phillipe: I think so too.
Phillipe: can I move to CR now?
MC: JG and BG will review by next week
<mck> jd: next week you will have two reviews from members of the aria wg. It will be up to web platfomrs if they want to hold off going to cr.
MC: Do we want to ask them to hold up?
<mck> mc: it may be possible that they have already gone to cr by the end of the next week.
<mck> so do we want them to hold off.
<mck> jd: I say we give them the option but do not ask them to hold.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
RESOLUTION: ARIA WG will not perform formal
review of ARIA in HTML, but some participants will submit
review
... ARIA WG does not request that transition to CR for ARIA in
HTML be delayed but advises them comments may come from
individuals by 16 March 2018
<scribe> scribe: mck
<scribe> scribe: mck
Charles: on behalf of personalization tf, we are making incremental improvement to explainer and adaptive content module.
we want to get it up by csun.
mostly minor items and some clean up.
jd: should I be anticipating crfc for new wd publication
charles: yes, there will be request for cfc.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestones
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestone/1
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/milestone/2
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/2
mck: this issue triggers tangent issues that I added as comments
the basic question has a clear answer
but there are other things with problems
unsure if we should close issue 2 and open others, or keep working on issue 2
either way, should be for version 1.2
I´m seeing numbering differences between versions, some wording are specific
<janina> There's a CSS spec on this, recently versioned, afaik
<mck> scribe: mck
Postponing topic.
<joanie> https://rawgit.com/w3c/accname/master/
JD: Chaals pointed we have not published a wd of accname since 2016.
I asked about turning accname aam into just accname
b/c all the mappings are in the AAM specs.
The rawgit link for master is a draft of the spec that is reduced to just pure algorithm.
I would like to do cfc to publish this next week
If you see any reason not to do a wide review working draftbased on what let me know by Monday.
jd: I want the cfc to be for the version we actually publish.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 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: i/JD: Next week the meeting changes, it will be an hour earlier/scribe: jongund Succeeded: s/scribe: matt_king/scribe: mck/G Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Present: MichaelC Joanmarie_Diggs janina jamesn jongund clapierre Stefan plh Bryan_Garaventa matt_king Found Scribe: jongund Inferring ScribeNick: jongund Found Scribe: mck Inferring ScribeNick: mck Found Scribe: jongund Inferring ScribeNick: jongund Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: mck Inferring ScribeNick: mck Found Scribe: mck Inferring ScribeNick: mck Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: mck Inferring ScribeNick: mck Scribes: jongund, mck, MichaelC ScribeNicks: jongund, mck, MichaelC Found Date: 08 Mar 2018 People with action items: 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 diagnostic output]