IRC log of aria on 2021-01-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 17:27:55 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #aria
- 17:27:55 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-irc
- 17:27:58 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 17:27:59 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
- 17:28:08 [jamesn]
- meeting: ARIA WG
- 17:28:14 [jamesn]
- chair: JamesNurthen
- 17:28:58 [jamesn]
- agendabot, agenda is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html
- 17:28:58 [agendabot]
- jamesn, sorry, I don't understand "agenda is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html". Try "agendabot, help".
- 17:29:11 [jamesn]
- agendabot, help
- 17:29:11 [agendabot]
- jamesn, I am an instance of AgendaBot 0.3. For detailed help, type "help COMMAND", where COMMAND is one of invite, agenda, find, suggest, accept, this is, forget, status, reload or bye. Or go to https://www.w3.org/Tools/AgendaBot/manual.html
- 17:29:46 [jamesn]
- agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Jan/0044.html
- 17:29:46 [agendabot]
- clear agenda
- 17:29:46 [agendabot]
- agenda+ New Issue Triage<https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues>
- 17:29:46 [agendabot]
- agenda+ New PR Triage<https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues>
- 17:29:47 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Meaty topic for next week<https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam+label%3Adeep-dive&type=Issues>
- 17:29:50 [agendabot]
- agenda+ ACCNAME Suggested simplification<https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96>
- 17:29:53 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Listbox and tree: clarify requirements for selected and checked<https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1340>
- 17:29:56 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors<https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1332>
- 17:29:59 [agendabot]
- agenda+ 1.3 triage<https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aproject+sort%3Acreated-asc>
- 17:32:20 [jamesn]
- regrets+ PeterKrautzberger JoanmarieDiggs MelanieSumner ScottOHara
- 17:32:30 [jamesn]
- present+
- 17:59:31 [Jemma]
- I am joinng now
- 18:00:12 [StefanS]
- StefanS has joined #aria
- 18:00:15 [MichaelC]
- present+
- 18:00:34 [jcraig]
- present+
- 18:00:35 [MarkMccarthy]
- MarkMccarthy has joined #aria
- 18:00:37 [StefanS]
- present+
- 18:00:38 [MarkMccarthy]
- present+
- 18:00:42 [MarkMccarthy]
- scribe: MarkMccarthy
- 18:00:43 [Jemma]
- present+
- 18:01:52 [CurtBellew]
- CurtBellew has joined #aria
- 18:02:20 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:02:20 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- New Issue Triage<https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fc
- 18:02:23 [Zakim]
- ... ore-aam&type=Issues> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:02:41 [carmacleod]
- carmacleod has joined #aria
- 18:02:48 [carmacleod]
- present+
- 18:02:50 [MarkMccarthy]
- https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam&type=Issues
- 18:02:56 [Matt_King]
- Matt_King has joined #aria
- 18:03:09 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: 5 new issues, skipping the first (#96) as its on agenda today
- 18:03:25 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: 1382, 1.2 roadmap - not sure how to answer this on github but I'll take care of it
- 18:03:30 [Matt_King]
- present+
- 18:03:39 [Isabel]
- Isabel has joined #aria
- 18:03:48 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: 1381, followup on 1100. jcraig
- 18:04:05 [Jemma]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381
- 18:04:05 [MarkMccarthy]
- s/1100. jcraig / 1100. jcraig, is this a 1.3 or 1.4 issue?
- 18:04:42 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: it could be 1.3, but ir eally needs input from joanie and aaron, maybe carmacleod. basically i took this up, just haven't filed it yet
- 18:04:48 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: might be a nonissue, but not a 1.2 thing
- 18:05:24 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: either way, this isn't pressing
- 18:05:45 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: I assigned it to joanie
- 18:06:03 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: 87 is editorial, 1.3
- 18:06:18 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: 1380, we talked about it last week. adding 1.3 milestone, would be good to get it done
- 18:06:28 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:06:28 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- New PR Triage<https://github.com/search?l=&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+created%3A%3E%3D2021-01-07+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aa
- 18:06:31 [Zakim]
- ... m&type=Issues> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:06:47 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: only one new PR, just editorial. no need for reviews
- 18:06:49 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:06:50 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 was just opened, MarkMccarthy
- 18:06:53 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, close this item
- 18:06:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 18:06:54 [Zakim]
- I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 18:06:54 [Zakim]
- 3. Meaty topic for next week<https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam+label%3Adeep-dive&type=Issues>
- 18:06:54 [Zakim]
- ... [from agendabot]
- 18:06:57 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 18:06:59 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- Meaty topic for next week<https://github.com/search?q=is%3Aopen+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faria+repo%3Aw3c%2Faccname+repo%3Aw3c%2Fcore-aam+label%3Adeep-dive&type=I
- 18:06:59 [Zakim]
- ... ssues> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:07:22 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: we have a bunch of things for the next deep dive - any proposals or anything?
- 18:07:32 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: we talked about user actions for the web today, so i'll remove that one
- 18:08:20 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: no immediate preference on which topic to go over
- 18:08:59 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: i thought on the accname one, we agreed that the intent of the spec was clear and bryan was going to propose modifications to make at least that example work
- 18:09:11 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: there's something on the agenda today for that...
- 18:09:45 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: at any rate, the issue of self referencing labels, the algoritm, and spec example are all not exactly agreeing. it probably isn't a good candidate for a deep dive just yet
- 18:10:02 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: i don't think there's anything to specifically discuss with that...
- 18:11:09 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: so maybe no deep dive next week, jamesn!
- 18:11:17 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: sorted!
- 18:11:21 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:11:21 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- ACCNAME Suggested simplification<https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:11:52 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: we had this isue with accname, aaron proposed a simplification - linked above - to reorder accname slightly
- 18:12:31 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: 2c basically says if 2e applies, do that, otherwise go back to 2c and 2d
- 18:13:04 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: so, if 2e comes first, then that order makes a bit more sense. it seems like that what's chrome does anyway. so it just makes it easier to read
- 18:13:41 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: one question - i see references to the steps, people refer to the number and letter in issues/blog posts/etc.
- 18:14:16 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: because they're numbered and letter, rather than named based on what it does, when it's reordered I wonder if it'll cause confusion. not a reason not to do it, but it makes me wonder if it's truly that simple
- 18:14:48 [MarkMccarthy]
- bryan: it's kind of unavoidable though, like if other things need to be added, the order is going to change no matter what
- 18:15:12 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: maybe we do away with numbering in the future, to avoid the issue altogether
- 18:15:16 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: +`1
- 18:15:24 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: that's what I was thinking
- 18:15:33 [MarkMccarthy]
- s/+`1/+1
- 18:15:42 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: might be better to put that in a separate issue though
- 18:15:55 [MarkMccarthy]
- Jemma: aaron talked about recursion for this issue too right?
- 18:16:12 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: i didn't rewrite everything, but i did call it descendent recursion, since that's what was intended
- 18:16:23 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: so we have a short unique name for each step?
- 18:16:25 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: makes sense
- 18:16:26 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: yes
- 18:16:58 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: i had been working on a better description of how to do description calc in a table format, people liked that. so maybe that's a good method too
- 18:17:05 [MarkMccarthy]
- bryan: that'd be awesome!
- 18:17:16 [Jemma]
- aaronlev: short unique name is recommended. it would be more appropriate to use the word "description calculation or decendants recursion"
- 18:17:23 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: an example would be great!
- 18:17:26 [Jemma]
- rather than " recursion"
- 18:17:54 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: makes it easier to sort through so much information
- 18:18:09 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: so if you have something, even incomplete, add it to an issue so bryan or whoever wants to can look at it
- 18:18:22 [MarkMccarthy]
- bryan: that would certainly be make things a lot easier
- 18:18:46 [MarkMccarthy]
- Jemma: makes me wonder if the table format would be 1:1 mapping, since it's not a flowchart? but i'm curious
- 18:18:57 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: i'll send an example, i promise it's easier than a flowchart!
- 18:19:25 [MarkMccarthy]
- carmacleod: back on the 2c/2d etc. PR, watch out for the IDs and fragment identifiers
- 18:19:45 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: someone else can probably write this PR, so don't worry too much about it aaronlev
- 18:20:07 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: i'll assign this to me. any objections any of this?
- 18:20:15 [MarkMccarthy]
- bryan: sounds great, i'm all for simplification.
- 18:20:20 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:20:20 [Zakim]
- agendum 5 -- Listbox and tree: clarify requirements for selected and checked<https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1340> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:20:31 [Jemma]
- s/about recursion/about recursion concept
- 18:21:00 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: so this is all ready to go in but I didn't yet because I wanted aaron to look at it. i'd love James Teh and Matt_King to add some comments to aaron's comment
- 18:21:21 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: i thought I already did, but --
- 18:22:10 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: this is a response to your response, Matt_King. so basically it's not about the initial serialization, but we have to recalculate the tree if user actions intervene
- 18:22:35 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: what i want - once it's made a decision to use the selection follows focus rule, it can stick that rule on that tree/list and not have to recompute the rule
- 18:22:39 [MarkMccarthy]
- s/recalculate/recompute
- 18:23:09 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: it'd only make a rule if theres at least one item in there
- 18:23:42 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: if there's one item and the author inends to use checked but it's not declared, it won't work right until it's added
- 18:23:46 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: essentially yes
- 18:24:24 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: basically i just don't think it should be going back and forth and have to recompute etc.
- 18:24:40 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: makes sense.
- 18:25:09 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: potentially we should get new reviewers/re-reviewers, might be helpful. jcraig, your thoughts?
- 18:25:43 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: i can re-review if need be
- 18:25:57 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: doesn't have to be now, but if this is made explicit in spec, we would still need your review
- 18:26:16 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: so if/when there's a new change, I'll definitely take another look
- 18:26:26 [MarkMccarthy]
- jamesn: aaronlev, okay to merge now and a new issue for future clarification?
- 18:26:31 [MarkMccarthy]
- aaronlev: definitely! no worries
- 18:26:38 [MarkMccarthy]
- jcraig: that'll make the second PR easier to review too
- 18:26:57 [MarkMccarthy]
- Matt_King: so we'll need an issue documenting when that new PR is there
- 18:27:09 [Jemma]
- zakim, next item
- 18:27:09 [Zakim]
- agendum 6 -- Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors<https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1332> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:27:12 [MarkMccarthy]
- scribe: Jemma
- 18:27:49 [Jemma]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1332#discussion_r553384105
- 18:29:09 [Jemma]
- we will wait for Melsumner's response.
- 18:29:17 [Jemma]
- zakim, next item
- 18:29:17 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 -- 1.3 triage<https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aproject+sort%3Acreated-asc> -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:30:22 [Jemma]
- car: #350
- 18:31:01 [Jemma]
- .. there was inconsistency and I fixed it. it would be great someone, JamesC, can review.
- 18:31:25 [jamesn]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+no%3Aproject+sort%3Acreated-asc
- 18:32:31 [Jemma]
- #996, we need to editorial work for this, "implicit value"
- 18:33:13 [jamesn]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/975
- 18:33:17 [Jemma]
- s/#996/#966
- 18:34:02 [Jemma]
- 975 is related to https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/350
- 18:34:48 [Jemma]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/953#issuecomment-487384288
- 18:35:55 [Jemma]
- james: 953 can moved to aria 1.3
- 18:36:05 [Jemma]
- car and matt agree
- 18:37:00 [Jemma]
- #979
- 18:37:23 [Jemma]
- jamesn: no objection moving #979 to 1.4
- 18:37:44 [Jemma]
- #982 is editorial
- 18:38:17 [Jemma]
- #989
- 18:38:17 [jamesn]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/989
- 18:39:11 [Jemma]
- ..add it to agenda item so that we can learn more about it.
- 18:40:06 [jamesn]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/991
- 18:40:16 [Jemma]
- this can be deep dive topic.
- 18:40:49 [Jemma]
- we can also invite other visualization experts, not only leonie
- 18:40:52 [MarkMccarthy]
- zakim, who is here?
- 18:40:52 [Zakim]
- Present: jamesn, MichaelC, jcraig, StefanS, MarkMccarthy, Jemma, carmacleod, Matt_King
- 18:40:55 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Matt_King, carmacleod, CurtBellew, MarkMccarthy, StefanS, RRSAgent, Zakim, jamesn, tzviya, MichaelC, bigbluehat, slightlyoff, ZoeBijl, JonathanNeal, Jemma, jcraig,
- 18:40:55 [Zakim]
- ... spectranaut, zcorpan_, timeless, Josh_Soref, agendabot, github-bot, joanie
- 18:41:04 [MarkMccarthy]
- present+ BryanGaraventa AaronLeventhal
- 18:41:21 [Jemma]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 18:41:21 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html Jemma
- 18:41:29 [MarkMccarthy]
- present+ IsabelHoldsworth
- 18:41:32 [MarkMccarthy]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 18:41:32 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html MarkMccarthy
- 18:50:42 [carmacleod]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381
- 18:50:49 [Jemma]
- https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1381 can be a good deep dive topic.
- 18:51:10 [Jemma]
- (group discussed about this issue casually)
- 18:51:37 [Jemma]
- rrsagent, make mintutes
- 18:51:37 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintutes', Jemma. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 18:51:55 [Jemma]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 18:51:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-aria-minutes.html Jemma
- 19:02:24 [jamesn]
- zakim, part
- 19:02:24 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees have been jamesn, MichaelC, jcraig, StefanS, MarkMccarthy, Jemma, carmacleod, Matt_King, BryanGaraventa, AaronLeventhal, IsabelHoldsworth
- 19:02:24 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #aria
- 20:07:25 [jongund]
- jongund has joined #aria
- 21:01:37 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria