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