IRC log of aria on 2019-09-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

23:24:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #aria
23:24:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-irc
23:24:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #aria
23:24:28 [jamesn]
rrsagent, meeting spans midnight
23:24:38 [jamesn]
rrsagent, make log world
23:24:51 [jamesn]
Meeting: ARIA WG F2F TPAC - Day 2
23:33:29 [kzms2]
kzms2 has joined #aria
23:43:22 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #aria
23:51:11 [jihye]
jihye has joined #aria
00:02:05 [jamesn]
we are in #pwg
00:03:28 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
00:04:39 [aboxhall_]
aboxhall_ has joined #aria
00:05:38 [jamesn]
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/994278485
00:05:45 [jamesn]
we are in #pwg
00:06:24 [AmeliaBR]
AmeliaBR has joined #aria
00:06:28 [spectranaut]
spectranaut has joined #aria
00:09:28 [Jemma_]
Jemma_ has joined #aria
00:28:42 [ZoeBijl]
we are in #pwg
00:41:51 [Irfan]
Irfan has joined #aria
00:42:37 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
00:43:02 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
00:43:05 [ZoeBijl]
scribe: ZoeBijl
00:43:39 [ZoeBijl]
TOPIC: Repeated content
00:43:40 [ZoeBijl]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1044
00:44:02 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #aria
00:44:07 [Jemma]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1044
00:45:42 [mck__]
mck__ has joined #aria
00:45:46 [ZoeBijl]
JD: James Craig how strong do you feel about linearised?
00:45:55 [ZoeBijl]
JC: *scribe fell behind*
00:46:02 [ZoeBijl]
Who is the primary client fo this CSS spec
00:46:07 [mck__]
mck__ has joined #aria
00:46:09 [ZoeBijl]
It felt like this was a similar thing
00:46:16 [ZoeBijl]
In medium/long form articles
00:46:19 [ZoeBijl]
…or books
00:46:27 [ZoeBijl]
The pullquotes which were he primary case
00:46:33 [ZoeBijl]
You might want to navigate to them
00:46:41 [Irfan]
present+
00:46:47 [ZoeBijl]
But read them in the linearised version
00:46:56 [ZoeBijl]
This is kinda like a CSS media type
00:47:14 [ZoeBijl]
If you tell your SR to “read all” you don’t want it to announce repeated content
00:47:34 [ZoeBijl]
JD: So repeated content are things that you’d want to be read in certain context
00:47:38 [ZoeBijl]
JC: yes
00:47:59 [ZoeBijl]
Like with VO if you do a two finger swipe down it’ll read the entire page
00:48:13 [ZoeBijl]
You might no want tthe repeated content to be read
00:48:29 [ZoeBijl]
My issue with the current proposal is that it might be too narrow a usecase
00:48:52 [ZoeBijl]
Perhaps we can apply this a broader use case
00:49:05 [ZoeBijl]
*James Nurthen makes a joke about aria-sometimes*
00:49:30 [ZoeBijl]
JD: So you’re saying… aria-linearised set to default?
00:49:47 [ZoeBijl]
The content author sets when the content is read.
00:51:42 [ZoeBijl]
But should it be the SR that says “hey this is repeated and my user said they don’t want that”
00:52:12 [mck___]
mck___ has joined #aria
00:52:13 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: Would something like an aside be another example of “not entirely relevant content”
00:52:18 [ZoeBijl]
*group is unsure*
00:52:28 [ZoeBijl]
JN: Redundant links
00:52:40 [ZoeBijl]
Anything that’s not repeated you want to read all the time right?
00:52:45 [ZoeBijl]
*group agrees*
00:52:58 [ZoeBijl]
Can we come up with anything that’s not repeated content
00:53:06 [ZoeBijl]
MK: I like the word redundant bettter
00:53:13 [ZoeBijl]
JD: You do? I think I do too.
00:53:41 [ZoeBijl]
JC: We should look at vocabulary
00:53:53 [ZoeBijl]
I think repeated content is a lot clearer and easier to understand than redundant
00:54:39 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: I agree, I think repeated is easier and more appropriate than redundant
00:55:16 [ZoeBijl]
Maybe we can make redundant a synonym ;)
00:55:29 [ZoeBijl]
MK: I’m not entirely sold on the use case period
00:55:44 [ZoeBijl]
If we’re trying to craft the end user experience
00:55:50 [ZoeBijl]
the screen reader experience
00:56:01 [ZoeBijl]
in ways that assume the SR user’s intent
00:56:18 [ZoeBijl]
you need to somehow, the screen reader, needs to somehow communicate their intent
00:56:29 [ZoeBijl]
JD: SR would have to implement an option for this
00:57:03 [ZoeBijl]
MK: JC you said something about the two finger swipe down
00:57:14 [ZoeBijl]
JC: if we know the authors inttent
00:57:16 [joanie]
present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
00:57:19 [ZoeBijl]
and it’s declaritive
00:57:19 [jamesn]
present+
00:57:28 [jamesn]
q+
00:57:34 [ZoeBijl]
MK: Having it be a SR option instead of a content option
00:57:40 [ZoeBijl]
Would make it a per user thing
00:57:55 [ZoeBijl]
I don’t think SRs need more options
00:58:40 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: could this be incorporated into a SR’s verbosity settings?
00:58:49 [ZoeBijl]
JC: We already have something for repeated labels
00:58:59 [ZoeBijl]
MK: That could be
00:59:10 [ZoeBijl]
But the difference between reading a text book
00:59:16 [ZoeBijl]
continues reading
00:59:23 [ZoeBijl]
versus not wanting to skip them
01:00:47 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: do you find it annoying to get repeated content read to you in articles
01:00:54 [ZoeBijl]
MK: That can be a bit confusing
01:01:23 [Jemma]
+q
01:01:40 [ZoeBijl]
Just trying to figure out who is responsible for that
01:02:08 [ZoeBijl]
ack jamesn
01:02:25 [ZoeBijl]
MK: it feels like something that has good intent and could be useful
01:02:41 [ZoeBijl]
But before you put it in a spec it ought to be tested with real people in real situations
01:02:55 [ZoeBijl]
What would implementations look like?
01:03:16 [ZoeBijl]
JN: Isn’t that the way we work?
01:03:53 [ZoeBijl]
Freedom Scientific already said they’re interested in it
01:04:11 [ZoeBijl]
JC: Just want to emphasise that I don’t like redundant
01:04:18 [ZoeBijl]
JD: Can you comment on the issue?
01:04:22 [ZoeBijl]
ack Jemma
01:04:35 [ZoeBijl]
JK: we already have landmark roles
01:04:40 [ZoeBijl]
if we look at the landmark concept
01:04:42 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #aria
01:04:49 [ZoeBijl]
you can skip the navigation
01:05:02 [ZoeBijl]
JD: using pull quote as an example
01:05:15 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #aria
01:05:25 [ZoeBijl]
JD: you can mentally ignore it
01:05:37 [ZoeBijl]
Because it’s styled differenly
01:05:44 [ZoeBijl]
So visually it’s easier to ignore it
01:05:51 [ZoeBijl]
That’s a lot harder if you use a SR
01:05:55 [jcraig]
Issue?
01:06:01 [ZoeBijl]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1044
01:06:29 [ZoeBijl]
*something about repeated headers*
01:06:37 [ZoeBijl]
Well he and others are debating that
01:06:42 [ZoeBijl]
JN: That’s not our debate
01:06:47 [ZoeBijl]
MK: It’s kinda interesting
01:06:54 [ZoeBijl]
Like 90% of the headers is repeated
01:06:59 [ZoeBijl]
But the page numbers aren’t
01:07:12 [ZoeBijl]
But I often like to hear page numbers when I’m reading a book
01:07:21 [ZoeBijl]
It makes you aware of the transitions
01:07:27 [ZoeBijl]
JD: dPub has a role for that
01:07:31 [ZoeBijl]
Perhaps we can use that
01:07:52 [ZoeBijl]
But for truly repeated content we could use aria-repeatedcontent
01:08:03 [ZoeBijl]
MK: I’m not too annoyed by repeated content
01:08:18 [ZoeBijl]
JN: Yeah but if you get a long pull quote it might be different
01:08:20 [ZoeBijl]
MK: Ia gree
01:08:28 [ZoeBijl]
s/Ia gree/I agree/
01:09:39 [ZoeBijl]
JK: Are you saying that a pull quote can’t be a separate issue?
01:10:31 [ZoeBijl]
JD: Most users probably don’t want to be interrupted by all this content
01:10:32 [jcraig]
Commented in the issue: After the F2F discussion, I withdraw the suggestion for the broader approach. I think “repeated content” or something similar is easier for authors to understand than the concept of linearized content for screen reader reading modes.
01:10:45 [ZoeBijl]
Unless you’re proofreading or something like that.
01:10:57 [ZoeBijl]
MK: It could be a nice feature to have
01:11:16 [joanie]
q?
01:14:52 [mck___]
mck___ has left #aria
01:16:27 [mck]
mck has joined #aria
01:22:15 [Matt_King_]
Matt_King_ has joined #aria
01:25:07 [kurosawa]
kurosawa has joined #aria
01:39:44 [chrishall]
The minutes from yesterday don't seem to have set <tink> as scribe for "HTML Accessibility Issues" https://www.w3.org/2019/09/15-aria-minutes.html
01:39:44 [chrishall]
Yesterday this was resolved by someone inserting a scribe historically via `i/Table Ontology/scribe: ZoeBijl`
01:39:44 [chrishall]
So something like `i/HTML Accessibility Issues/scribe: tink/`should resolve that.
01:42:06 [ZoeBijl]
i/HTML Accessibility Issues/scribe: tink/
01:42:15 [ZoeBijl]
RRSAgent, make minutes
01:42:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html ZoeBijl
01:43:37 [ZoeBijl]
RRSAgent, make yesterday’s minutes
01:43:37 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make yesterday’s minutes', ZoeBijl. Try /msg RRSAgent help
01:44:05 [chrishall]
heh
01:46:20 [chrishall]
ty
01:50:57 [kurosawa]
kurosawa has joined #aria
01:56:47 [IanPouncey]
IanPouncey has joined #aria
01:58:38 [jcraig]
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3708
01:59:27 [spectranaut]
spectranaut has joined #aria
02:03:02 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
02:08:30 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #aria
02:08:43 [jamesn]
we are now in #css
02:09:45 [Matt_King_]
Matt_King_ has joined #aria
02:09:55 [mhakkinen]
mhakkinen has joined #aria
02:18:26 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #aria
02:20:12 [Jemma_]
Jemma_ has joined #ARIA
02:38:42 [Matt_King_]
Matt_King_ has joined #aria
02:46:42 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #aria
02:48:35 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
03:07:56 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #aria
03:12:06 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
03:13:51 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
03:15:51 [spectranaut_]
spectranaut_ has joined #aria
03:19:53 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
03:19:55 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
03:26:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #aria
04:06:16 [AutomatedTester]
AutomatedTester has joined #aria
04:06:20 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
04:07:07 [Irfan]
Irfan has joined #aria
04:08:21 [Irfan]
present+
04:08:25 [ZoeBijl]
present+
04:08:34 [ZoeBijl]
RRSAgent, make minutes
04:08:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html ZoeBijl
04:09:50 [dot-miniscule]
dot-miniscule has joined #aria
04:10:04 [ZoeBijl]
https://bocoup.github.io/presentation-aria-and-webdriver/#/
04:10:17 [spectranaut]
https://bocoup.github.io/presentation-aria-and-webdriver/#/
04:10:20 [mhakkinen]
mhakkinen has joined #aria
04:10:29 [Boaz]
Boaz has joined #ARIA
04:10:29 [bwald_]
bwald_ has joined #aria
04:10:30 [ZoeBijl]
scribe: ZoeBijl
04:10:32 [Boaz]
present+ Boaz Sender, Bocoup
04:10:38 [Boaz]
link to slides: https://bocoup.github.io/presentation-aria-and-webdriver/#/
04:10:56 [AutomatedTester]
Present+ David Burns, Mozilla
04:11:03 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #aria
04:13:21 [ZoeBijl]
Note: this meeting will not be minuted as the script for the talk is in the speaker notes. Potential discussion after the presentation will be minuted.
04:13:41 [kurosawa]
kurosawa has joined #aria
04:17:13 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #aria
04:24:03 [ZoeBijl]
Example of pushButton documentation: https://bocoup.github.io/aria-practices/aria-practices.html#automation-pushbutton
04:25:16 [bwald_]
bwald_ has joined #aria
04:29:05 [ZoeBijl]
*JC pointed out that close attention should be paid to how the role of an element is determined*
04:29:32 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has joined #aria
04:30:12 [ZoeBijl]
Related to the “inferring the role” part of the proposed documentation linked to earlier ⤴️
04:31:58 [ZoeBijl]
*start of discussion/feedback*
04:32:01 [ZoeBijl]
Val: again there are multiple ways to check something like a button’s label
04:32:17 [ZoeBijl]
Do you think the guidelines are stable enough to use it for this?
04:32:37 [ZoeBijl]
Is the time now to do this?
04:32:42 [Avneesh]
Avneesh has joined #aria
04:32:50 [ZoeBijl]
So we’re testing ideas that are in the APG
04:32:58 [joanie]
q?
04:33:00 [ZoeBijl]
Those are the topics and questions for now
04:33:10 [ZoeBijl]
SP: This is webdriver extensions
04:33:24 [ZoeBijl]
In that sense it makes sense to document them in the webdriver spec
04:33:36 [bwald_]
bwald_ has joined #aria
04:33:57 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: the webdriver spec tries to give us primitives to allow people to automate
04:34:05 [ZoeBijl]
with WD we think we have three audiences
04:34:08 [ZoeBijl]
web qa person
04:34:10 [ZoeBijl]
spec authpors
04:34:18 [ZoeBijl]
and people that want to write automation for something
04:34:22 [ZoeBijl]
Like a webcrawler
04:34:32 [ZoeBijl]
We try to cater to these three audiences
04:34:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #aria
04:34:41 [ZoeBijl]
and we try to make the primitives as low as possib;le
04:34:48 [ZoeBijl]
I’m not against this being in the WD spec
04:34:55 [ZoeBijl]
But perhaps it’s a new primitive
04:34:59 [ZoeBijl]
It’s not like a core…
04:35:07 [ZoeBijl]
Not how e historically thought about this
04:35:10 [jcraig]
q+
04:35:12 [ZoeBijl]
It’s not a subset of people
04:35:25 [ZoeBijl]
that’s why I wasn’t sure if it fits in the WD spec
04:35:29 [joanie]
q+
04:35:35 [ZoeBijl]
That’s where my initial gut feel came from
04:35:48 [ZoeBijl]
average user, it’s kind of like, fitting those three groups of people
04:36:01 [ZoeBijl]
The spectrum is incredible broad
04:36:04 [ZoeBijl]
How does that fit in
04:36:08 [ZoeBijl]
With push button as an example
04:36:20 [ZoeBijl]
No one has come to us to ask “how do I push a button”
04:36:59 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: I think it would be good to automate this, take away people having to think about accessibility
04:37:03 [Boaz]
q+
04:37:03 [ZoeBijl]
Even if no one asked for that
04:37:07 [Boaz]
q-
04:37:09 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: absolutely
04:37:29 [ZoeBijl]
And then you would go and try and do a click or keyboard interaction
04:37:40 [ZoeBijl]
And at that point it uses the accessibility tree rather than DOM commands
04:37:48 [ZoeBijl]
So what Val and Simon were saying
04:37:56 [ZoeBijl]
You get these stale ????
04:38:00 [ZoeBijl]
If you did find it
04:38:05 [ZoeBijl]
and you try to interact with it
04:38:16 [ZoeBijl]
you throw an error saying “hey this isn’t in the a11y tree”
04:38:33 [ZoeBijl]
JJ: I was thinking in the case of the examples
04:38:42 [ZoeBijl]
the dev would have alrteady have given the role to the element
04:38:55 [ZoeBijl]
I think it would be more interesting to tell them ??
04:38:58 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
04:39:16 [ZoeBijl]
Would rather have it say click this role via the accessibility tree
04:39:28 [ZoeBijl]
Val: I think that’s the intention
04:39:30 [joanie]
q-
04:39:36 [jamesn]
ack jc
04:39:43 [ZoeBijl]
JC: Pitched this idea years ago
04:39:53 [ZoeBijl]
Probably in some other repo
04:40:05 [ZoeBijl]
Some of the primitives that this could pile onto is element.computedRole
04:40:16 [ZoeBijl]
Not necessarily go through the script but ask the engine
04:40:22 [ZoeBijl]
You can get the role and label from there
04:40:46 [ZoeBijl]
You can find elements by computed roles
04:41:10 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: can we get this via JavaScript?
04:41:12 [ZoeBijl]
JC: No
04:41:36 [aboxhall_]
element.computedRole is experimental and buggy
04:41:48 [ZoeBijl]
It’s going through the DOM tree, but that doesn’t necesarily mean that the browsers are doing the right thing, you can’t check that through the DOM.
04:41:59 [ZoeBijl]
JN: I believe you can get it in puppeteer now
04:42:33 [ZoeBijl]
JC: Getting access to the entire accessibility tree is going to take a long time
04:42:42 [ZoeBijl]
Getting access in webdriver would be trivial tho
04:42:59 [ZoeBijl]
SP: Why wouldn’t we give access to all developers
04:43:17 [ZoeBijl]
JC: That’s a good question, right now there’s a significant performance hit
04:43:48 [ZoeBijl]
SP: Is it heavy to request the role of an element?
04:43:56 [sarah_higley]
sarah_higley has joined #aria
04:44:49 [ZoeBijl]
JC: Not necessarily but there are complications
04:45:00 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: Would it be heavy to get all elements of a certain role?
04:45:33 [ZoeBijl]
JC: Yes. I suggested a :role selector for CSS years ago. But when we tried to implement it with the CSS WG we found that it was too heavy.
04:46:43 [ZoeBijl]
Select by label (similar to what’s on slide #8) is something we use a lot to find things
04:46:46 [joanie]
q?
04:46:50 [ZoeBijl]
This works through the accessibility tree
04:46:56 [ZoeBijl]
So I hink this is a great idea
04:47:10 [ZoeBijl]
I think this should be closer to the APG (?)
04:47:44 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: whereever it lives doesn’t stop it from being implemented
04:48:02 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: As long as it’s not he APG, because that’s a note not a spec
04:48:23 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: webdriver puts lots of effort into extensibility into its spec
04:48:40 [Boaz]
q?
04:48:54 [ZoeBijl]
I think it fits better in WebDriver
04:49:20 [ZoeBijl]
Boaz: ????
04:49:36 [ZoeBijl]
I don’t think this needs to be in the WD spec
04:49:56 [ZoeBijl]
AutomatedTester: the other thing I tried to advance is
04:50:01 [ZoeBijl]
this is very input driven testing
04:50:08 [jamesn]
?
04:50:13 [ZoeBijl]
which is one of the easier sides of testing accessibility
04:50:17 [Boaz]
boaz: I think the idea here is to change web developer's mindsets
04:50:18 [ZoeBijl]
ack Boaz
04:50:43 [ZoeBijl]
s/????/I think the idea here is to change web developer's mindsets/
04:51:51 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has joined #aria
04:51:55 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has left #aria
04:52:07 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has joined #aria
04:52:18 [CharlesL]
present+
04:52:25 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
04:52:26 [Avneesh]
present+
04:52:45 [ZoeBijl]
TOPIC: aria-details
04:53:13 [ZoeBijl]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1001
04:53:19 [joanie]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1001#issuecomment-521076833
04:53:31 [Jemma_]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1009
04:54:31 [spectranaut]
scribe: spectranaut
04:54:44 [Jemma_]
rrsagent, make minutes
04:54:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html Jemma_
04:55:06 [Matt_King]
From the spec:
04:55:15 [Matt_King]
"In some user agents, multiple reference relationships for descriptive information are not supported by the accessibility API. In such cases, if both aria-describedby
04:55:16 [Matt_King]
and aria-details are provided on an element, aria-details takes precedence."
04:55:27 [Jemma_]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1009
04:55:35 [Jemma_]
present+
04:55:40 [achraf]
present+
04:55:45 [joanie]
present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
04:55:45 [spectranaut]
present+
04:55:54 [jamesn]
present+
04:55:57 [Irfan]
present+
04:56:50 [spectranaut]
mk: (describes jongunds issue) the way we spec'd aria-details, it is not meant to describe an accessible description
04:57:05 [Joshue108]
Joshue108 has joined #aria
04:57:20 [spectranaut]
the challenge is that we don't know what an accessible description is, and what the difference of intent is between aria-details
04:57:36 [zcorpan_]
zcorpan_ has joined #aria
04:58:09 [spectranaut]
the content in aria-details should be navigatable to, but accessible description does not have to exist in the dom because it could be a hidden element
04:58:48 [CharlesL]
q+
04:58:58 [spectranaut]
the main thing we would like to accomplish is: what is the content referenced by aria-details in particular? what is the AT expectations?
04:59:30 [spectranaut]
if you use both, you maybe overwritting the accessible description?
04:59:38 [spectranaut]
so are the details the description?
05:00:00 [Irfan]
ack cl
05:00:12 [mhakkinen]
present+
05:00:14 [joanie]
ack CharlesL
05:00:16 [spectranaut]
cl: we looking to use aria-details int he publisher context for enhanced image descriptions
05:00:28 [mhakkinen]
q+
05:00:42 [spectranaut]
say we have an image that is complex, like a table (heaven forbid) we would like to use aria-details to put a table in aria-details
05:01:06 [spectranaut]
or if we had an image of a math equation
05:01:26 [spectranaut]
can we use aria-details in this way?
05:01:45 [spectranaut]
when a screen reader hits an element with aria-details, it says, "has details"
05:01:49 [jamesn]
q+
05:01:55 [Avneesh]
q+
05:01:58 [spectranaut]
we would like it to be a linkable, clickable, navigatable section
05:02:12 [spectranaut]
have a mechanism to the go back where they were in reading
05:02:58 [spectranaut]
mk: question about images. is there a reason the image wouldn't be in a figure and all of that details content would be in a fig-caption, directly associate with the image?
05:03:40 [spectranaut]
cl: maybe a publisher wants all of those description sin an appendix, instead of encapsulated in a fig caption with the image
05:04:02 [spectranaut]
mh: I share charles's interest. We generate a lot of content with complex images.
05:04:03 [jamesn]
ack mh
05:04:16 [spectranaut]
we need to provide a link to image and structure decision
05:04:36 [spectranaut]
s/decision/description/
05:05:29 [spectranaut]
without aria-details, we could use a figure with text descriptio. structure info about a image and flatten it into aria-describeby is bad
05:05:39 [joanie]
q+ JamesC
05:06:06 [spectranaut]
I'm not thrilled with aria-details. does the screen reader need to tell you how to get to the structure content. what if that content has another link.
05:06:10 [jamesn]
ack me
05:06:31 [spectranaut]
jn: one good thing about aria-details is that we are about to get more implementaiton sof it because of aria annotations work
05:06:44 [spectranaut]
hopefully screen readers will add a way to navigate to the annotation
05:07:01 [bwald_]
bwald_ has joined #aria
05:07:28 [Avneesh]
https://github.com/daisy/epub-accessibility-tests/tree/master/content/epub30-test-0340/
05:07:29 [jamesn]
ack av
05:07:36 [joanie]
q+ To state we need to do something about the mappings.
05:07:51 [spectranaut]
av epub use cases link link above
05:08:17 [spectranaut]
aria-details and aria-describeby is huge. aria-describeby truncates tables and does not provide good descriptions
05:08:47 [spectranaut]
people do not want to put descriptions by image by at the end of the page
05:09:10 [spectranaut]
aria-details is not announced by screen reader, but we need a way to move between the image to where the description is and back again
05:09:29 [jamesn]
ack jc
05:09:33 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
05:09:35 [bwald_]
bwald_ has left #aria
05:09:37 [jamesn]
ack jamesC
05:09:50 [Matt_King]
q?
05:09:56 [Matt_King]
q+
05:11:07 [spectranaut]
jc: annotations. aria-details reminds us of longdesc. but there are benefits -- same page.
05:11:34 [joanie]
ack me
05:11:35 [Zakim]
joanie, you wanted to state we need to do something about the mappings.
05:11:39 [spectranaut]
BUT aria-details actually has use cases than longdesc
05:11:57 [joanie]
https://w3c.github.io/core-aam/#details-id-105
05:12:00 [spectranaut]
s/than/unlike
05:12:02 [spectranaut]
s/than/unlike/
05:13:09 [spectranaut]
jd: if there are details and describe-by is due to UIA -- if they have one description.
05:13:34 [spectranaut]
if microsoft can add something to their api to differentiate between aria-details and aria-describeby
05:13:48 [spectranaut]
what happens if both appear and we can only expose one of them?
05:14:12 [spectranaut]
UIA is microsoft's user interface automation
05:14:38 [jamesn]
q?
05:14:48 [jamesn]
ack Ma
05:15:45 [CharlesL]
q+
05:15:53 [spectranaut]
mk: support for aria-details. no one is suggesting to get rid of it. Microsoft wasn't read to support it but it went into the spec anyway. if we can get rid of the conflict that only exist in UIA then we could make aria-details fully functional on all platforms
05:16:25 [spectranaut]
if in a year from now we have aria-details support. from an authoring perspective, it is not the accessible description.
05:16:42 [joanie]
Identifies the element that provides a detailed, extended description for the object. See related aria-describedby.
05:17:17 [joanie]
The aria-details attribute references a single element that provides more detailed information than would normally be provided by aria-describedby.
05:18:07 [spectranaut]
mk: "accessible name and description calculation" -- aria-details has nothing to do with that
05:18:20 [spectranaut]
jd: confirms that is in the spec
05:18:24 [joanie]
Unlike elements referenced by aria-describedby, the element referenced by aria-details is not used in either the Accessible Name Computation or the Accessible Description Computation as defined in the Accessible Name and Description specification [ACCNAME-1.1].
05:18:30 [spectranaut]
jc: annotations are not descriptions
05:18:50 [spectranaut]
mk: we need to find another way to communicate this in the spec not using description
05:19:15 [joanie]
q+ To ask about the "alternatively... link to web page" bit
05:19:20 [CharlesL]
q-
05:19:21 [spectranaut]
what will the authoring practice say? if annotations go forward, we can include information about that
05:20:13 [jamesn]
q?
05:20:13 [joanie]
ack me
05:20:15 [Zakim]
joanie, you wanted to ask about the "alternatively... link to web page" bit
05:20:24 [joanie]
Alternatively, aria-details may refer to a link to a web page having the extended description, as shown in the following example.
05:20:36 [spectranaut]
jd: something else the spec says that we should get rid of (above)
05:20:58 [Avneesh]
q+
05:21:07 [spectranaut]
unofficial decision: get rid of reference to "Extended description"
05:21:08 [jamesn]
q+
05:21:17 [jamesn]
ack av
05:21:30 [spectranaut]
av: some people want to put accessible descriptions at the end of the book
05:21:53 [spectranaut]
they say the authors have control of content on the pages
05:21:58 [spectranaut]
different webpage
05:22:10 [spectranaut]
each chapter is an html page
05:22:16 [spectranaut]
last page has descriptions
05:22:34 [bigbluehat]
present+ Benjamin_Young
05:23:24 [spectranaut]
av: we want aria-details to be able to link to a different webpage
05:23:43 [spectranaut]
aria-details links to a link that will link to a different web page
05:24:38 [spectranaut]
mk: we will have aria-details that links to a link. the language of the spec (above) implies the user should be able to bypass that directly -- if aria-detail points to an anchor, then the use will not navigate to the location of the anchor tag but instead to the target
05:25:32 [spectranaut]
is there implied UA functionality?
05:25:51 [spectranaut]
aria-details can point to ANY structure content, like a thousand links instead of one link
05:25:58 [bigbluehat]
q+
05:26:13 [spectranaut]
does that line imply it can skip the user to another place without rendering/announcing the link
05:27:15 [jamesn]
ack jamesn
05:28:20 [spectranaut]
mh: trying to minimize navigation steps is what we want. description is part of image element, it's right there, they don't have to navigate
05:28:29 [Avneesh]
q+
05:28:35 [spectranaut]
it's not a good user experience to jump around to what should be read in context
05:28:51 [jamesn]
ack bigb
05:29:02 [spectranaut]
by: I'm using aria-details
05:29:38 [spectranaut]
is the question: is the content of the reference just a url?
05:30:09 [spectranaut]
if the fragment pointed to was an anchor without any text, might as well follow the href
05:30:36 [spectranaut]
jd: I'm worried about the accessibility API to move back .
05:30:59 [Matt_King]
q+
05:31:03 [ZoeBijl]
q?
05:31:05 [mhakkinen]
q+
05:31:33 [spectranaut]
by: I know within publishing in general the web annotation spec could serve a similar purpose, but it takes another page and merges it together
05:31:43 [spectranaut]
we should move it off to the publisher ground
05:31:49 [spectranaut]
s/ground/group/
05:32:50 [spectranaut]
references in aria-details can point to things that are not in tree but could be added later...? but if there is a use case to keep them separate, there must be a way to combine them.
05:33:20 [jamesn]
ack av
05:34:04 [spectranaut]
av: authors really want to the book to look like the printed book. And that is why they want to put the description at the end
05:34:29 [spectranaut]
some authors want in the same html files and some want it in different ones
05:34:32 [jamesn]
ack Matt_King
05:34:49 [jamesn]
zakim, close queue
05:34:49 [Zakim]
ok, jamesn, the speaker queue is closed
05:35:56 [spectranaut]
mk: I want to echo what ben was saying and I think we need to strike the language about the links and the publishers that need to put the details content in another place out of the way then there are multiple other technical solutions and some of them could use aria-details and some couldn't -- aria-details needs to refer to directly to content visible int he page that can be moved to.
05:36:14 [jamesn]
q?
05:36:47 [jamesn]
ack mh
05:37:04 [spectranaut]
mk: we should entertain a resolution to strike that
05:37:13 [spectranaut]
jd: I'm in favor
05:38:02 [bigbluehat]
q+
05:38:04 [spectranaut]
s/strike that/strike the language about going to links/
05:39:13 [spectranaut]
by: there is being discussed an include tag. go get a whole webpage and make that a description of the thing you are inside of. the include tag could provide that.
05:39:21 [spectranaut]
I want to bring in a whole iframe but like a description
05:48:39 [zcorpan_]
zcorpan_ has joined #aria
05:49:20 [bigbluehat]
present- bigbluehat
05:52:34 [ZoeBijl]
rrsagent, make minutes
05:52:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html ZoeBijl
05:53:02 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has joined #aria
05:53:26 [ZoeBijl]
chair: joanie, jamesn
05:53:44 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has left #aria
05:53:47 [alastairc_]
alastairc_ has joined #aria
05:53:56 [ZoeBijl]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/748
05:54:45 [bigbluehat]
present+ Benjamin_Young
05:54:51 [spectranaut]
jn: read issue
05:55:54 [ZoeBijl]
Live code example: https://s.codepen.io/Moiety/debug/3c14a0599ab1a6a6c491f7ebf4119f1d
05:56:13 [jamesn]
https://github.com/w3c/dpub-aria/issues/15
05:56:18 [spectranaut]
the issue from this morning is related: dpub aria
05:56:28 [spectranaut]
(reads new issue)
05:56:47 [spectranaut]
s/issue/issue dpub-aria #14/
05:57:00 [spectranaut]
s/#14/#15
05:57:03 [spectranaut]
s/#14/#15/
05:57:48 [spectranaut]
section number: 525 in 1.1
05:57:56 [Jemma_]
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#mustContain
05:58:39 [spectranaut]
zb: in issue 748, what is the problem with the code example?
05:59:41 [spectranaut]
jn: the problem is that it is defined as: owned is any descendant. In reality it doesn't work. If we need to count the number of list items in the list, it would be wrong. a list of one, then a list of one
06:00:13 [spectranaut]
jd: also the accessiblity tree is wonky. webkit removes useless divs. others don't, firefox and chrome have issues
06:02:16 [spectranaut]
jn: what do we want to do about this?
06:02:35 [spectranaut]
jd: I think we correct the spec and say it needs to be a direct descendant
06:02:51 [spectranaut]
we should change the definition of owned to be a direct descendant or direct child or anything pointed to by aria-owns
06:03:02 [ZoeBijl]
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-ul-element
06:03:05 [spectranaut]
mk: we are forcing people to put aria-owns if there is an intermediate div
06:03:41 [spectranaut]
zb: reads link. if an li is a role of "item" then the code in the issue is correct
06:04:37 [spectranaut]
jn: you are reading the wrong section
06:04:49 [spectranaut]
that is the ul element -- it is flow content ... ???
06:05:04 [spectranaut]
zb: nevermind
06:05:26 [jamesn]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/748#issuecomment-473594928
06:05:32 [spectranaut]
jn: my proposal is in comment linked above
06:06:48 [spectranaut]
avoids problem of adding role=presentation on every random div
06:07:18 [spectranaut]
everyone: makes arounds of agreement with suggestion in comment
06:08:22 [spectranaut]
jd: I agree with principle of what you are describing but there needs to be more description. inbetween elements must have role none or generic or any other property that would force its inclusion in the accessibility tree
06:08:39 [spectranaut]
s/descriptions/restrictions
06:08:41 [spectranaut]
s/descriptions/restrictions/
06:09:41 [mhakkinen__]
mhakkinen__ has joined #aria
06:10:05 [spectranaut]
mk: they also can't be focusable or have text
06:10:52 [spectranaut]
jd: user agents need to do some tree pruning
06:11:08 [spectranaut]
jn: they don't have to but it is the easiest way
06:11:24 [spectranaut]
s/have to/have to tree prune/
06:11:48 [spectranaut]
jd: if we put this change in the spec but ua don't do anything then it's usefully change
06:12:07 [spectranaut]
this doesn't work in ua and at -- so changing spec language is not enough
06:12:31 [spectranaut]
we can't normatively "must" the ua prune the tree
06:13:32 [spectranaut]
jn: I have one more question in the comment
06:14:58 [spectranaut]
should we also allow descendant elements of the aria-owns also be ignored in this way
06:16:35 [jamesn]
Should we also allow you to reference a DIV with aria-owns rather than referencing the individual LI elements..... This would be really handy for tables split into scrollable regions.
06:17:20 [spectranaut]
jn: an extension spec. in dpub they are subclassing an aria-list expecting to be able to say an ul has these children, where our spec explictly forbids it
06:17:32 [spectranaut]
they would also have to subclass ul into their spec
06:18:13 [spectranaut]
jd: I'm ok with your proposal and aria-owns having the same funcitonality
06:19:02 [spectranaut]
jemma: are we taking care of the epub issue?
06:19:22 [spectranaut]
jn: its a similar issue but it is not the same
06:19:26 [Jemma_]
https://github.com/w3c/dpub-aria/issues/15
06:20:43 [spectranaut]
mk: lets conceptual discuss how to solve the dpub issue
06:20:57 [spectranaut]
should we have explicit spec prose about how to extend aria?
06:21:07 [spectranaut]
jn: AT would have to support this
06:22:40 [joanie]
https://w3c.github.io/dpub-aria/#doc-biblioentry
06:22:59 [spectranaut]
jd: the link I just put in
06:23:14 [spectranaut]
superclass role of .biblioentry is a list item
06:23:38 [spectranaut]
now dpub-aam
06:24:41 [joanie]
https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aam-1.0/#role-map-biblioentry
06:25:08 [spectranaut]
this goes one step forward and says it exposes on all platforms as a list item. In the mapping it says that it is a biblioentry
06:25:18 [spectranaut]
some platforms communicate that
06:25:21 [Jemma_]
https://w3c.github.io/dpub-aria/#doc-biblioentry
06:25:28 [spectranaut]
AT automatically support it
06:25:53 [spectranaut]
s/support it/support these subclassing/
06:27:11 [spectranaut]
the problem with the extension spec is that the modifications to the list item made by biblioentry is in violation of the aria spec for list item
06:27:56 [joanie]
s/for list item/for required owned elements of list/
06:29:08 [spectranaut]
vy: We need to change the spec to allow this scenario
06:29:14 [spectranaut]
jd: yes that is right
06:29:23 [Matt_King]
What the spec says about extensions: The use of RDF/OWL as a formal representation of roles may be used to support future extensibility. Standard RDF/OWL mechanisms can be used to define new roles that inherit from the roles defined in this specification. The mechanism to define and use role extensions in an interoperable manner, however, is not defined by this specification, and RDF/OWL...
06:29:24 [Matt_King]
...processing is not essential to interoperable implementation of this specification. A future version of WAI-ARIA is expected to define how to extend roles.
06:30:11 [spectranaut]
mk: if we put any extension language in our spec right now, then do we need to change what it says here about how to extend roles?
06:30:20 [spectranaut]
jd: no because we still haven't defined how to extend roles
06:31:06 [spectranaut]
mk: if we add some language to the section about required owned elements and that language specifically says that if an extension subclasses a role, then that extension may define the required owned elements for that role?
06:43:32 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
06:44:18 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
07:00:09 [Jemma_]
rrsagent, make minutes
07:00:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html Jemma_
07:02:59 [BGaraventa]
BGaraventa has joined #aria
07:03:17 [ZoeBijl]
scribe: ZoeBijl
07:03:32 [ZoeBijl]
JN: could we just say just for the list role
07:03:45 [ZoeBijl]
are there other subclasses of listitem
07:03:50 [BGaraventa]
present+ Bryan_Garaventa
07:03:54 [ZoeBijl]
treeitem is a subclass of listitem as well
07:04:10 [BGaraventa]
I'm on the call as well
07:04:29 [ZoeBijl]
or we could have a different subclass
07:04:30 [BGaraventa]
:)
07:04:47 [ZoeBijl]
there’s spec level subclasses and extension level subclasses
07:04:53 [ZoeBijl]
MK: That’s what I was saying
07:05:07 [ZoeBijl]
JN: It seems a bit hacky. but it works
07:05:10 [sarah_higley]
wave! :)
07:05:15 [ZoeBijl]
MK: We don’t have anything else for making rules
07:05:21 [ZoeBijl]
I fear it’s a can of worms
07:05:26 [ZoeBijl]
JN: Sounds like a 1.3 topic o me
07:05:34 [ZoeBijl]
MK: Maybe we should post, have this issue
07:05:37 [ZoeBijl]
considering 1.3
07:05:48 [ZoeBijl]
I don’t think we should try to fix this in 1.2
07:06:00 [ZoeBijl]
Because we don’t know all the ramifications of it
07:06:02 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
07:06:05 [ZoeBijl]
We already have modeules
07:06:14 [ZoeBijl]
But we have nothing that governs them at all
07:06:20 [ZoeBijl]
JN: Is there another way to fix this?
07:06:30 [ZoeBijl]
JD: They could add a numeral, but they don’t want that
07:06:43 [ZoeBijl]
JN: They have a dpub-list which extends list
07:06:56 [sarah_higley]
I don't see an issue with saying they should extend list
07:06:56 [ZoeBijl]
MK: I thought they had list?
07:06:57 [ZoeBijl]
They have listitem
07:07:34 [ZoeBijl]
That just means that in their markup, in their spec, all their implementations that instead of their bibliography
07:07:44 [ZoeBijl]
JD: Yeah but the bibliography is the whole thing
07:07:47 [ZoeBijl]
It has more stuff in it
07:07:59 [ZoeBijl]
MK: Whatever their ul is, they should have a bibliolist
07:08:46 [ZoeBijl]
If we were going to solve it it would be a 1.3 issue
07:09:01 [ZoeBijl]
JN: So we should ask ourselves (or them) if there are additional issues
07:09:10 [ZoeBijl]
If there are we should definitely move it to 1.3
07:13:46 [ZoeBijl]
MK: Either fix in DPUB 1.1 or we take a year to fix it in ARIA 1.3
07:19:15 [ZoeBijl]
ZB: W3C Nu Validator doesn’t throw an error on this.
07:19:21 [ZoeBijl]
aXr 3.9.0 does
07:19:27 [ZoeBijl]
s/aXr/aXe/
07:19:38 [ZoeBijl]
TOPIC: Long term planning for W3C explanitory resources related to ARIA and other web technologies
07:20:35 [BGaraventa]
I got lots of energy
07:20:49 [ZoeBijl]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1001#issuecomment-517806506
07:20:57 [ZoeBijl]
github: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1001#issuecomment-517806506
07:21:03 [Boaz]
Boaz has joined #aria
07:21:05 [Boaz]
present+
07:21:39 [ZoeBijl]
MK: there’s a few things that we’d like to cover
07:22:31 [ZoeBijl]
but the ultimate goal of this is for me to walk away with some notion of whether or not the group supports some new more end user friendly approaches to helping web developers learn about accessibility from W3C resources.
07:22:49 [ZoeBijl]
HTML and potentially WCAG
07:23:00 [ZoeBijl]
But let’s discuss it among our selves frist
07:23:09 [ZoeBijl]
We need to know what this groups wants to support
07:23:15 [ZoeBijl]
I’m thinking about the multi year picture
07:23:21 [ZoeBijl]
But not less than two
07:23:27 [ZoeBijl]
But preferably a lot longer
07:23:33 [ZoeBijl]
So I want to talk about the problem
07:23:36 [ZoeBijl]
before we do that tho
07:23:45 [ZoeBijl]
I want to make sure everyone is up to date
07:24:01 [ZoeBijl]
particular the apg and the ARIA AT
07:24:05 [ZoeBijl]
s/apg/APG/
07:24:11 [ZoeBijl]
APG does not yet explain all of ARIA
07:24:21 [ZoeBijl]
all of the new ARIA 1.2 stuff will be in APG 1.2
07:24:29 [ZoeBijl]
we have a new “role” coverage
07:24:38 [ZoeBijl]
Same for states and properties
07:24:46 [ZoeBijl]
So we can better see what we have covered
07:24:50 [ZoeBijl]
s/see/explain/
07:25:02 [ZoeBijl]
But when it comes to guidance with example we have long way to go
07:25:09 [ZoeBijl]
So there’s a lot of work to do on the APG itself
07:25:30 [ZoeBijl]
My original goal is to close that gap by the end of the year
07:25:51 [ZoeBijl]
It’s realistic to think we can achieve this by the end of next year
07:25:58 [ZoeBijl]
especially with the help of Boaz’ team
07:26:17 [ZoeBijl]
have a more standard PR review process
07:26:27 [ZoeBijl]
trying to beef up that APG TF operates
07:26:38 [ZoeBijl]
so it can fulfill its mission
07:27:12 [ZoeBijl]
A big problem with the APG is that it does not help people make stuff that works with all the bugs that exist in all the AT and browsers out there.
07:27:30 [ZoeBijl]
It’s not a component library you can just grab components from and drop in your project
07:27:39 [ZoeBijl]
It’s a resource of how ARIA should be used
07:27:58 [ZoeBijl]
if AT and browsers didn’t have any bugs it would be a component library
07:29:00 [ZoeBijl]
If someone comes to the APG and thinks they can use it without testing it has a bad influence on the end users experience
07:29:16 [ZoeBijl]
providing support tables is not in the scope of the APG
07:29:25 [ZoeBijl]
That’s why we now have the ARIA AT TF
07:29:37 [ZoeBijl]
s/TF/CG/
07:29:39 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #aria
07:30:17 [ZoeBijl]
Its goal being to provide support tables or a supported score that would give some indication of how well supported these examples are
07:30:32 [ZoeBijl]
I’d like to give Val some time to discuss our progress
07:30:47 [ZoeBijl]
Val: we joined in because of our background in testing
07:30:56 [ZoeBijl]
we have two goals
07:30:58 [zcorpan]
present+
07:31:00 [ZoeBijl]
one is to design a test suite
07:31:07 [ZoeBijl]
for the APG and ARIA in general
07:31:26 [ZoeBijl]
designing a test suite is a big task because there are a lot of implications and difficulties
07:31:39 [ZoeBijl]
so we need a way to write test that can be understood by users and AT
07:31:55 [ZoeBijl]
We also need a document that describes how AT should behave
07:32:01 [ZoeBijl]
Such a document does not exist
07:32:14 [ZoeBijl]
So we’re also talking to AT companies to create such a thing
07:32:24 [ZoeBijl]
Designing a test suitte is a huge bulk fo the work
07:32:27 [ZoeBijl]
s/suitte/suite/
07:32:48 [ZoeBijl]
As it is right now we’re breaking down the design patterns in the APG
07:32:54 [ZoeBijl]
into a bunch of expectations
07:33:16 [ZoeBijl]
The second goals is designing a test harness that assert these tests to manual testers
07:33:55 [ZoeBijl]
We’re not sure how much time and how frequent we can test
07:34:08 [ZoeBijl]
Bocoup and Facebook are working on this together
07:34:19 [ZoeBijl]
we’re trying to lock down the design for this test suite
07:34:30 [ZoeBijl]
In november we’ll build a prototype
07:34:37 [ZoeBijl]
that’s the timeline right now
07:35:13 [Jemma_]
Timeline is finishing the design by the end of Oct, and delivering the product by the end of November.
07:35:57 [Jemma_]
+q
07:36:45 [jamesn]
zakim, open queue
07:36:45 [Zakim]
ok, jamesn, the speaker queue is open
07:36:52 [jamesn]
q+ Jemma
07:41:04 [jamesn]
ack Je
07:41:16 [ZoeBijl]
JK: Part of my question was answered already
07:41:20 [ZoeBijl]
it was about timeline and the goals
07:41:28 [ZoeBijl]
I think it’s pretty strict
07:41:48 [ZoeBijl]
The last AT meeting I joined there was a table of AT and browser combinations
07:41:59 [ZoeBijl]
What does the final product look like?
07:42:25 [ZoeBijl]
MK: End of november is only the test harness
07:42:31 [ZoeBijl]
Val: yeah, it’s a prototype
07:42:37 [ZoeBijl]
We might start to record results
07:42:43 [ZoeBijl]
we won’t have a full suite
07:42:50 [ZoeBijl]
we want to have some initial tests
07:43:00 [ZoeBijl]
but it won’t have enough for a full suite
07:43:05 [ZoeBijl]
it won’t be robust enough
07:43:10 [ZoeBijl]
we’ll have to run test first
07:43:23 [ZoeBijl]
MK: This is an exploratory prototype
07:43:43 [ZoeBijl]
To see what kind of issues we’ll run into and how we can fix those
07:44:08 [ZoeBijl]
JN: What other kind of documents (other than APG and ARIA AT) do you have in mind?
07:44:31 [ZoeBijl]
MK: There are a lot of different W3C resources related to helping a web dev make stuff accessible
07:44:41 [ZoeBijl]
some is almost duplicated
07:45:07 [ZoeBijl]
but some are maintained by different group
07:45:20 [Jemma_]
s/strick/tight
07:45:29 [ZoeBijl]
s/group/groups/
07:45:30 [Jemma_]
s/strict/tight
07:46:55 [Jemma_]
https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/
07:48:11 [Jemma_]
https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/
07:48:13 [ZoeBijl]
the list of resources, the big buckets, are APG, ARIA AT both from ARIA WG, Using ARIA (from the WPWG),
07:48:46 [ZoeBijl]
ARIA in HTML (also from WPWG)
07:49:58 [Jemma_]
I think we should define what we meant by "explanitory resources" precisely.
07:50:29 [ZoeBijl]
WAI Tutorials
07:50:49 [ZoeBijl]
from EOWG
07:50:57 [ZoeBijl]
not sure to what extent that covers WCAG techniques
07:51:06 [ZoeBijl]
they’re ment to be explanitory resources
07:51:30 [Jemma_]
+q
07:51:53 [ZoeBijl]
The problem I see with all these resourcesw
07:52:04 [ZoeBijl]
there’s important information in all of them
07:52:12 [ZoeBijl]
they need to be known by the same people
07:52:46 [ZoeBijl]
from our perspective we can say that’s your groups scope, this is our goup’s scope, etc
07:52:55 [ZoeBijl]
clear for us at the W3C, but not from the outside
07:53:05 [ZoeBijl]
there’s confusion outside of the W3C.
07:53:17 [ZoeBijl]
Sometimes the resources say different things.
07:53:26 [ZoeBijl]
We need to look at how we can serve the community
07:53:53 [ZoeBijl]
that best servers their purposes
07:54:31 [ZoeBijl]
maybe there should be a community group that sucks up all of these resources
07:54:49 [ZoeBijl]
that forms a format that can combine all of them
07:55:00 [ZoeBijl]
I like how the WAI tutorials are represented on their own site
07:55:26 [ZoeBijl]
Why not have something similar for all of these resources
07:56:12 [ZoeBijl]
That’s the question I would like to put forward to the group
07:56:29 [ZoeBijl]
JN: I agree that it should be a website
07:56:38 [ZoeBijl]
Boaz: it should be like a bootstrap thing
07:57:58 [ZoeBijl]
MK: I would love fort there to be tutorials that explain our choices for a design pattern step by step
08:01:08 [zcorpan]
scribenick: zcorpan
08:01:20 [zcorpan]
jamesn: as soon as you take accessibility practices
08:01:38 [zcorpan]
jamesn: you take away aria practices, since aria may not be the best way to solve a11y problems
08:02:39 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: encapsulating all of aria in apg is part of the scope of the new rename accessibility practices
08:02:46 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: debate of the name
08:02:53 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: and scope
08:03:07 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: if we rebrand scope, tutorial is not just about aria
08:03:14 [zcorpan]
Boaz: accessible practices
08:03:22 [zcorpan]
jamesn: so that is beyond scope of this group
08:03:39 [zcorpan]
jamesn: if our pages are in a similar.. .can be integrated with theirs
08:03:53 [zcorpan]
Boaz: what's your preference for merging these things into a more coherent resource
08:04:00 [zcorpan]
jamesn: if they merge we can't own them
08:04:05 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: there are joint task forces
08:04:11 [zcorpan]
jamesn: there could be something like that
08:04:36 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: joint TF can have as part of its scope explaining the aria spec
08:04:39 [zcorpan]
jamesn: yes
08:04:57 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: it would have to have aria representation, aria wg would be a stake holder
08:05:42 [zcorpan]
Boaz: no matter how governance is in terms of ownership and scope, we need to talk to web platform wg or whatever about do we want to delete "using aria"
08:06:07 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: if it was mdn there would be a governance issue there too
08:06:41 [zcorpan]
Boaz: maube there could be a way to have that scope in APG, done by aria, in a way that can be consumed by e.g. MDN
08:06:55 [zcorpan]
Matt_King: next step in exploration?
08:08:34 [Jemma_]
rrsagent, make minutes
08:08:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-aria-minutes.html Jemma_
08:11:29 [ZoeBijl]
rrsagent, close minutes
08:11:29 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'close minutes', ZoeBijl. Try /msg RRSAgent help
08:12:15 [ZoeBijl]
rrsagent, stop logging
08:12:15 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop logging', ZoeBijl. Try /msg RRSAgent help
08:12:32 [ZoeBijl]
rrsagent, go away
08:12:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'go away', ZoeBijl. Try /msg RRSAgent help
08:12:52 [ZoeBijl]
rrsagent, leave
08:12:52 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items