17:59:11 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:59:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/04-aria-irc 17:59:13 meeting: ARIA WG 17:59:13 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:59:14 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 17:59:18 chair: JamesNurthen 17:59:54 meeting: ARIA WG 18:00:00 chair: JamesNurthen 18:00:16 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2021Feb/0001.html 18:00:16 clear agenda 18:00:16 agenda+ New Issue Triage 18:00:16 agenda+ New PR Triage 18:00:16 agenda+ Meaty topic for next week 18:00:16 agenda+ Follow-up: tree inclusion of focusable elements from #1100 18:00:19 agenda+ ACCNAME 18:00:22 agenda+ Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors 18:00:25 agenda+ Spec is unclear on aria-invalid="spelling" | "grammar" uses 18:00:28 agenda+ 1.3 triage 18:01:41 MarkMccarthy has joined #aria 18:03:38 siri has joined #aria 18:04:02 CurtBellew has joined #aria 18:04:34 regrets+ IsabelHoldsworth PeterKrautzberger JamesCraig 18:05:06 present+ 18:05:13 present + 18:05:17 present+ 18:05:21 scribe: CurtBellew 18:05:26 present+ 18:05:32 sarah_higley has joined #aria 18:05:37 present+ 18:06:03 StefanS has joined #aria 18:06:07 zakim, next item 18:06:07 agendum 1 -- New Issue Triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:06:18 present+ 18:06:19 present+ Joanmarie_Diggs 18:06:43 JN: 5 new issues. top two accname 18:07:29 JN: 1389. https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1389 . Don't know the answer offhand. is this a 1.3? 18:08:10 Joanie: possibly. but could the new roles related to presentational mean we need to address this in 1.2? 18:08:48 JN: This does seem to relate. These are two nuances it seems 18:09:37 carmacleod has joined #aria 18:09:45 JN: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1388. most people don't seem to see this a big issue. Moving to 1.3 if there are no objections. 18:09:58 present+ 18:10:15 regrets- JamesCraig 18:10:16 regrets- JamesCraig 18:10:25 present+ jcraig 18:10:49 JN: 1386 we addressed last week 18:10:59 Matt_King has joined #aria 18:11:08 present+ 18:11:10 zakim, next item 18:11:10 agendum 2 -- New PR Triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:11:17 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1387 18:11:31 JN: one PR -- https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1387 18:11:46 JN: has 3 approvals so is everyone ok with moving forward? 18:12:10 jcraig: I do have a question but I think we should merge it in. The last comments 18:12:48 MK: we're removing things that were previously added right? 18:12:54 jcraig: right 18:13:21 JN: was this really added? This was in Core AAM and has been moved to the spec 18:13:42 MK: In that PR we had a clarification of what was in Core AAM. So we changed it when we moved it over 18:13:50 "Elements that are focusable, or have an ID attribute and an ancestor with the aria-activedescendant attribute that matches the implicit or explicit semantics of the required context role. In either case, the element may receive focus and may fire an accessibility API FOCUS event." 18:14:15 JN: We did change it. 18:14:29 jcraig: the big change was to clarify around aria-hidden 18:15:45 short summary: it was "expose anything *focusable*, even if aria-hidden". It's now "expose anything *focused*, even if aria-hidden" 18:15:45 MK: if you're telling authors what you can and can't do with relation to aria-hidden then can you tell them what to do with focusable 18:16:29 MK: seems you can't. if the element is focusable then it's impossible to keep it out of the accessibility tree 18:18:34 MK: hidden from AT users but not hidden from other users. AT hidable is not possible across platforms for focusable elements and that's how we want it? 18:18:58 jcraig: it is possible to make it hidden from both AT and other users (tabindex="-1") 18:19:51 JN: Thre are other ways to remove elements from the tabindex 18:20:14 JN: We don't necessarily want any solution that requires setting everything to tabindex=-1 18:20:50 jcraig: Trapping is difficult 18:21:10 SH: It's doable 18:21:31 SH: we listen for the key event. It's not simple but it's not too hard 18:22:26 JN: So, aside from how it's done let's assume people will want to do it to accommodate things like dialogs etc 18:22:26 q+ 18:23:01 MK: We want to avoid a side effect where we prevent aria-hidden that could be legitimate. Is there something could prevent that? 18:23:18 JN: This change is making it more possible to do things than it was before 18:23:36 s/Trapping is difficult/Trapping (correctly) is difficult. Most authors that use a keyboard trap break the users experience when tabbing or shift+tabbing out of the web view into the browser UI/ 18:23:46 rrsagent, make minutes 18:23:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/04-aria-minutes.html jcraig 18:24:02 ack me 18:24:04 Thanks, jcraig. difficult to keep up. 18:24:45 jcraig: makes it possible to use aria-hidden the right way and will prevent bad impact when a mistake is made in using aria-hidden 18:25:43 MK: Authors do have more control as a result of this. we should be able to reliably hide focusable elements from AT as long as they don't get focus. 18:26:06 MK: Approving this PR 18:26:15 jcraig: moving that we merge this. 18:26:20 JN: agree. Merging 18:27:01 zakim, next item 18:27:01 agendum 3 -- Meaty topic for next week -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:27:20 JN: do we want a deep dive next week? 18:27:53 JN: [silence] No deep dive next week. 18:28:01 zakim, next item 18:28:01 agendum 4 -- Follow-up: tree inclusion of focusable elements from #1100 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:28:48 JN: we talked about this one so we can move one. We have the approvals to move to CR 18:29:52 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1371 18:30:03 jcraig: ARIA 1371. Ability to prevent AT detection 18:30:33 jcraig: We could do this for the deep dive next week 18:30:39 JN: yes good idea 18:30:53 MK: deep dive to work on the language to add? 18:32:23 MK: Don't we need to add language to express a goal or intent to prevent AT detection. Other specs hve that language but we do not right? 18:33:08 JN: That language exists but it is very incomplete. The ARIA part isn't the part that prevents it necessarily 18:34:46 jcraig: Detecting AT really has nothing to with ARIA. We can't address it completey by adding it to our spec. We need to bring that to the attention of other groups 18:35:43 MK: do you think there should be the ability to adjust user interfaces based on what technologies people are using in a way that protects privacy 18:36:10 MK: media queries for reduced motion, high contrast settings. things like that. Do those fall in to this space? 18:37:05 jcraig: to some degree media queries don't necessarily associate a user with a disability. 18:37:29 jcraig: some of the other methods could be used to associate a user to a disability 18:37:57 q+ to ask to discuss next week 18:38:18 jn: This seems like a topic for next week. 18:38:37 MK: to what extent should have the conversation inside ARIA before we talk to the privacy group 18:40:17 MK: I think I'mnot as all or nothing. I want to protect privacy and a lot of situations where adapting the user interface to create a better user experience has been extremely valuable 18:40:51 MK: To me not much different than responsive design because it makes the experience much better 18:42:33 agenda? 18:42:43 jcraig: I don't disagree. I have suported a way for a user to opt in for user preferences allowing this. It's just a question of what could be abused to detect that an AT is being used 18:43:26 jcraig: the future conversation about allowing a user to opt in feels like another conversation 18:43:44 JN: if the privacy group can't make it next week I propose we have a conversation amongst ourselves 18:43:55 JN: to get a more consistent path forward 18:44:41 jcraig: could we meet the 25th? 18:45:16 JN: proposed to meet with privacy group next thursday. So I'd like to go ahead with that 18:46:30 zakim, next item 18:46:30 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, CurtBellew 18:46:40 q? 18:46:47 q- 18:46:49 ack j 18:46:49 jamesn, you wanted to ask to discuss next week and to ask to discuss next week 18:46:55 action: james to merge 1381 into stable and CR branch 18:47:25 zakim, next item 18:47:25 agendum 5 -- ACCNAME -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:48:20 JN: We need answers from people. They are now in Github. If you have an opinion on how accname should work or you want to walk through the steps and offer an opinion that would be great 18:49:23 JN: the comment we have now is about what the browsers currently do as opposed to how accname should work here 18:49:46 CM: The current answer is helpful in understanding how it works now 18:50:08 JN: We really want to put aside what the browsers currently do so we can determine what they should do ... 18:51:16 MK: We an analyze the current algorithm to understand what it does. If we want something different it's useful to say what should change in the algorithm and what the consequences might be 18:51:38 zakim, next item 18:51:38 agendum 6 -- Updated aria-setsize and aria-posinset to clarify usage for authors -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:51:57 JN: waiting for reviews. 18:52:09 JN: jcraig, MK as well as JN are down for reviews. 18:53:16 CM: this adds one normative change. This change goes one direction and not the other. this is what we want. There's a paragraph in each spec that talks about how the user agent can automatically calculate 18:53:44 CM: If only a portion is available at any give moment then this property is needed 18:54:01 CM: This paragraph seems to contradict 18:54:42 MK: I don't like the language there because it seems to place an additional requirement on the author. 18:55:16 JN: I think we can make the second sentence in to a normative requirement. 18:57:05 action, james to add comment to PR 1332 to author requirement for posinset if start of set is not present 18:57:12 action: james to add comment to PR 1332 to author requirement for posinset if start of set is not present 18:57:40 jcraig: changing some phrasing. Changing property to attribute. 18:58:19 JN: Can we make this a separate issue 18:58:25 zakim, next item 18:58:25 agendum 7 -- Spec is unclear on aria-invalid="spelling" | "grammar" uses -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:58:58 JN: I'm asking for more thumbs up or down on the straw pole 19:00:00 JN: Is the current markup supported today? If so then no need to change it 19:00:36 zakim, who is on the call? 19:00:36 Present: jamesn, MarkMccarthy, CurtBellew, sarah_higley, StefanS, Joanmarie_Diggs, carmacleod, jcraig, Matt_King 19:01:21 rrsagent, make minutes 19:01:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/04-aria-minutes.html jamesn 20:21:06 jongund has joined #aria