<joanie> agenda: this
<joanie> agenda: be done
joanie: We've got FPWD of ARIA 1.2, Core-AAM 1.2, and Authoring Practices 1.2, and updated Authoring Practices 1.1 all published
<joanie> https://www.w3.org/blog/2018/07/aria-1-2-fpwd/
joanie: doing some migration of
text cases so we have a fuller report
... want to get the test case list more complete (a couple
hours) before broadly sharing the post more
... Congratulations everyone!
<scribe> scribe: melanierichards
joanie: need a minimum of 24
supporting votes, have 19 now
... please bug your AC rep to vote
Janina: would appreciate votes from your reps on APA
joanie: [reminder that APA is taking on personalization work, better fit for that WG]
joanie: TPAC price going up July
31, register and pay soon
... math community group coordinating with Janina to have APA
and math meeting at TPAC
... if you care highly about math accessibility, consider
coming to that meeting on Monday (TPAC)
janina: the APA is trying to look at that from the generic point of view, there's desire to support ChemML, we're looking at what can we say generically that can help us do this? is every one [math language] a write-off?
joanie: some of those publishers
are probably going to continue not using ChemML. MathML is one
way to get math on web pages, but not the only way. Others want
to see accessible math via SVG. Question is: how do we use ARIA
and other host-language that are not domain specific to make
math specific?
... would be good to have a conversation about ChemML at the
Monday meeting in order to help Math and APA look at the
broader picture
... no matter what host language is used, should be fully
accessible
joanie: no issues have been filed
since the last meeting
... we'll keep working on existing issues
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/780
joanie: different viewpoints at
the last meeting, asked for comments. Thank you Matt and
Bryan!
... those are opposite opinions as well, Matt would like
required and remove default value, Bryan wants supported not
required
bryan: don't have a strong opinion one way or the other
mattk: same boat, don't have a
strong opinion here
... in terms of the way we treat normative requirements, when
we change things (like required), we should treat those as a
big deal because they affect validation. It's possible
validators weren't looking at this already, though. It's
possible because people don't often make accessible scrollbars,
don't know that I've seen one on the web
joanie: my understanding is that
the same situation applies to sliders
... let's frame in terms of sliders instead of scrollbar
mattk: if it already says
required, I would vote for leaving it, for this validation
reason
... in the case of slider we have this situation where what
screen readers say, if there are sliders that aren't specifying
orientation...think there might be quite a bit of those...
bryan: there are
MichielBijl: for tabs, we do have a requirement only if it's vertical. is that an option?
mattk: that's the current
discussion, yes
... for tabs, most of the time they're horizontal, so doesn't
make sense to put extra burden on others. how common is
horizontal vs vertical with scrollbars/sliders?
... for scrollbars there's not a clear winner for horizontal vs
vertical, so we might not have the same answer here
... between scrollbars and sliders
... I think probably most sliders are horizontal so it makes
sense to have this a supported property that defaults to
horizontal
... but that doesn't apply, to me, for scrollbars
joanie: is there some way to get
data?
... does anyone think we have consensus on this issue?
mattk: I think we may have
consensus on the concerns, meaning we do have a concern in the
case of slider of existing implementations. to have browsers
not assume a default value for sliders when they are currently
doing so, to make that change in browsers could have negative
ramifications. to do the same for scrollbars would probably
have no negative ramifications
... in either case, people who are not specifying
aria-orientation, their implementation is not validating or the
validators aren't checking
joanie: should we open a new issue for slider and deal with scrollbar separately?
melanierichards: separate issues seems reasonable
mattk: agree, treat
independently
... I don't know if that means you have to have a new issue
joanie: typing this is in the
github issue
... [reads out language about treating separately]
mattk: leaning toward keeping it required, and I don't think removing the default with have severe consequences
jongund: agree with mattk
joanie: resolution is to leave it required, and remove default value
[consensus]
[applause]
<joanie> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/779
<joanie> Consider moving normative, NON-mapping content from Core AAM to ARIA
joanie: want to check in before doing a bunch of work
<joanie> Inclusion and Exclusion from the Accessibility Tree
<joanie> ID Reference Error Processing
<joanie> The bulk of General rules for identifying the correct ARIA role, not exposing abstract roles, etc.
<joanie> The bulk of General rules for exposing states and properties
<joanie> Supporting keyboard navigation
joanie: there's all this stuff in
AAM that is not mapping, it mostly belongs in ARIA, some
perhaps in authoring, but just not in mapping
... do people agree that these do not belong in the mapping
specs?
... should we move to ARIA and remove from AAM?
mattk: on the same page as
you
... let's make sure the information is easy to find, is my only
concern or feedback
joanie: just self-assigned this
issue
... thank you for pointing out the concern, we might want to
have non-normative references
... non-normative links that say "for more info on blah, go
here"
... objections before I do this work?
[no objections]
mattk: I'm wondering, and this
might be a discussion for when you have a PR, but section 7 is
implementation and host languages. It's pretty user agent heavy
as well. So I'm wondering if that's actually the right title
for that section?
... section 7 in the ARIA spec, not AAM
... would like to know where that should land
... seems a little bit like implementation in everything other
than ARIA, which is user agents and host languages. seems like
most of that stuff would blend neatly with what's in that
section
joanie: making a note to myself on this
mattk: thank you for applying your brain power and time to this
joanie: reflective properties
that are needed for AOM going into ARIA 1.2
... what kind of tests need to go into WPT for that?
mattk: do we need to do some tests to make sure the browser supports the property when you use it?
joanie: I'll take an unofficial action item to reach out to James Craig and ask what these tests should look like
janina: did some googling and found quite a few vertical sliders
joanie: I think it's Steve Faulkner who has a tool that hunts for usage of particular features
mattk: what percentage of sliders on the web rely on the fact that aria-orientation has a default value?
janina: suggest talking to Steve Faulkner about getting a query for this
[refer to some notes inside agenda item 7 for the beginning of this conversation]
joanie: we have to figure out, if a slider is depending on something being horizontal, is it really horizontal? check for bounding box dimensions?
mattk: we really only need to
know how often people make sliders that don't have orientation
specified
... the fact that they're just present is important
joanie: some potential options to handle lack of value from screen reader or UA
mattk: author still relying on default value
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: s/going up soon/going up July 31/ Succeeded: s/accessibility/APA/ Succeeded: s/texts/tests/ Succeeded: s/it/default value/ Present: MichielBijl Joanmarie_Diggs MichaelC janina melanierichards jongund MattKing Bryan Garaventa Regrets: Irfan James_Nurthen Found Scribe: melanierichards Inferring ScribeNick: melanierichards Found Date: 19 Jul 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]