16:59:15 RRSAgent has joined #aria 16:59:15 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-irc 16:59:18 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:59:19 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 16:59:26 meeting: ARIA WG 16:59:31 chair: JamesNurthen 17:00:01 agenda+ [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/2QDnJKM) 17:00:01 agenda+ [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/32WPhxg) 17:00:01 agenda+ Upcoming Deep Dives 17:00:01 - this week (Apr 29) Accessible name prohibited issues 17:00:01 - next week (May 6) - aria-roledescription (stes-acc) 17:00:01 - 2 weeks (May 13) - Data Visualization part 2 17:00:02 agenda+ [Roles with required accessible names](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1466) 17:00:02 agenda+ [Suggested simplification](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96) 17:00:02 agenda+ [1.3 triage](https://bit.ly/3udUkWh) - 21 issues to go! 17:00:07 present+ 17:00:28 present+ Joanmarie_Diggs 17:00:34 present+ 17:01:43 harris has joined #aria 17:03:00 sarah_higley has joined #aria 17:03:36 present+ 17:03:45 present+ 17:03:53 MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria 17:03:55 Jory has joined #aria 17:03:56 present+ 17:05:18 present+ 17:05:22 scribe: msumner 17:05:38 Zakim, next item 17:05:38 agendum 1 -- [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/2QDnJKM) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:06:54 issue: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1476 17:07:31 jamesn: three new issues, two of which we discussed in the last hour, we need to get this resolved quickly 17:08:47 jamesn: resolution is that the issue (1476) is assigned to scott and myself 17:09:18 jamesn: issue 1474 also assigned to jamesn 17:09:23 zakim, next item 17:09:23 agendum 2 -- [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/32WPhxg) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:09:47 siri has joined #aria 17:10:41 jamesn: 1475 we need two more reviewers, who would like to review. 17:10:59 jcraig: you can assign me as a reviewer 17:11:31 jamesn: oh cool we already have three reviewers, also it's good to have one reviewer that wasn't in the deep dive convo 17:12:04 jamesn: the other one is editorial so I'll resolve, we don't need to discuss 17:12:11 zakim, next item 17:12:11 agendum 3 -- Upcoming Deep Dives -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:12:41 jamesn: next week we'll discuss aria role description next week, data viz part 2 the week after 17:13:10 jamesn: may 20th we'll discuss accessible name prohibited, focusing on what to do with focusable divs and what their role mapping should be 17:13:41 siri: all these sound super interesting but they all conflict, can we record? 17:14:34 jamesn: we do release minutes from these; recordings aren't typically available publicly unless everyone present agrees to it 17:14:56 cyns: are there calendar entries yet? 17:15:04 jamesn: no not yet we just decided on these 17:15:22 (discussion about subscribing capabilities for calendar use) 17:16:15 cyns has joined #aria 17:17:12 Calendar subscription: https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/aria/calendar/export 17:17:20 jcraig: deep dives are harder for me lately, so please ping me if you need me there so I can block my calendar 17:17:59 zakim, next item 17:17:59 agendum 4 -- [Roles with required accessible names](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1466) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:18:41 scott: "this" is a good way to describe this issue 17:20:22 scott: accessible name required row- sometimes it's true, false or not there at all. it should be consistent. 17:20:40 jamesn: what do people think? 17:21:22 msumner: I think it should be Accessible Name: Required, Not Required, or Prohibited. 17:21:31 bryang: that sounds correct 17:21:40 jamesn: okay cool but also this is more scripting work 17:22:28 Approved PR #1475 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1475 makes total sense 17:22:32 scott: so do I need to change it from "Accessible Name Required" ? 17:22:57 jamesn: I am not sure we should do this because there are things that reference this and all those references would have to be updated 17:23:59 carmacleod_: it does get a bit more complicated 17:24:24 scott: so let's then just do Accessible Name Required: true, and not put rows in for false or prohibited 17:24:43 (no objections, general agreement) 17:26:29 scott: next up we have "landmark SHOULD" - I think we want to call out some author guidance around landmark roles when there are multiple of the same landmark 17:28:01 jamesn: do we have an issue that says we should have links to practices? 17:28:16 carolyn: no but it's a good idea! there are a lot of links that could be added 17:29:34 scott will separate out the "landmark Should" section to a separate issue so it can be worked on separately 17:30:34 scott: right now if role="group" is named, it wouldn't be exposed, so it's missing name required. 17:30:50 *is not named 17:30:58 q+ 17:31:27 jamesn: can't you have an unnamed fieldset? so why wouldn't we allow an unnamed group? 17:31:51 scott: yes but that makes fieldset kinda useless right? 17:32:11 bryan: group is used for other things where you wouldn't want group to be named, like if it contained a tree 17:32:29 jamesn: sounds like we need an authoring note that sometimes it needs a name, and give usage examples 17:34:13 discussed APG guidance 17:34:17 scott: ok so for this one it's a no 17:34:33 scott: next up is tab and I don't think that makes sense w/o a name 17:34:37 carolyn: good point 17:35:03 jamesn: it says "name required only if content is insufficient" 17:35:21 jamesn: anyone disagree that tab should have accessible name required? (no objections) 17:36:12 scott: next up is separator: it says "if focusable" and I think we should give it more guidance 17:36:42 jamesn: I think we do stuff differently for things "if focusable" so I think it makes sense for accessible name to be required 17:37:13 siri: I always saw separator being used in APG in examples, but where is it focusable? 17:37:33 scott: a focusable separator might be one like between two window panes where you could adjust the width of the panes 17:38:18 bryan: do they even do this on the web? I haven't seen it. 17:38:36 sarah: is there some documentation anywhere about this? 17:38:57 jamesn: there were plans for a proposal for authoring practices about this, it just hasn't been a high priority 17:39:39 jamesn: typically it's the non-canvas, window-splitters where we tend to use this sort of pattern 17:40:40 jcraig: we do role description of splitter and you can interact with it like a slider 17:41:45 bryan: I've never seen one that was usable and intuitive on the web 17:42:14 jcraig: yes it's been hard to figure out but we have increment and decrement now so it's possible 17:42:20 scott: ok so it shouldn't have a name 17:42:38 (jokes re: tooltip) 17:43:05 s/hard to figure out/difficult to implement/ 17:45:03 s/we do role description of splitter and you can interact with it like a slider/Mac uses a role description of "splitter" and a [vertical | horizontal] property. A VoiceOver user can interact with it, then control it like a slider: increment or decrement./ 17:45:08 jamesn: tooltip supports name from content 17:45:11 rrsagent, make minutes 17:45:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html jcraig 17:45:49 sarah: clarifies that there's no issue if a tooltip doesn't have content (and it just exists as empty) 17:47:24 bryan: (if you put aria-label on a heading, it obscures the content of the heading- there are situations similar with tooltip where it can obscure content) 17:47:29 s/a role description of "splitter"/no label by default, but a role description of "splitter"/ 17:48:00 +1 for removing name required from tooltip 17:48:07 s/shouldn't have a name/shouldn't have name required/ 17:49:01 jamesn: decision: not require a name for roles of tooltip, label and legend. 17:49:07 no objection 17:50:38 scott: some other questions- "tree and treegrid require a name, but other similar roles (of varying similarities mind you) menu, menubar, toolbar, tablist, and navigation do not. should tree/treegrid continue to require a name, or should some of these other roles require a name too?" 17:51:04 scott: also "do alertdialog, dialog, table, grid, tabpanel need a quantifier to their required name status?" 17:51:52 jamesn: what do we think we should do about this? 17:52:16 carolyn: again, we should be pointing to APG. it would be nice to point to that naming guidance table 17:57:02 jamesn & scott: discussion about how the article element gets its name 17:57:21 agenda? 17:57:22 jamesn: I think we need a longer conversation on the "labeling things" 17:57:47 scott: I got what I need from this, I'll get it done 17:57:50 zakim, next item 17:57:50 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, msumner 17:57:59 q? 17:58:02 ack jamesn 17:58:12 zakim, next item 17:58:12 agendum 5 -- [Suggested simplification](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/96) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:59:45 msumner: i wanted to rearrange and update things, and hopefully move forward with rewording things in another PR, all taking into account James Teh's comments 18:00:14 msumner: no wording changed, only rearranged things so far 18:00:31 bryan: I'm having a hard time reading the code changes can you email me 18:00:35 msumner: sure will do 18:00:44 jamesn: there is a reference there that needs to be changed 18:01:06 jamesn: I'll give it a review as well, I agree that we should keep it to a small change and other things should be subsequent issues 18:01:18 jamesn: ok we're at the hour! 18:01:40 rrsagent, make minutes 18:01:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html msumner 18:02:59 regrets+ peter 18:03:16 regrets+ juanita kurt 18:03:36 regrets- juanita 18:03:43 regrets+ jaunita 18:03:54 rrsagent, make minutes 18:03:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html msumner 18:56:36 regrets- juanita kurt 18:56:50 rrsagent, make minutes 18:56:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html jamesn 18:57:20 regrets+ curt 18:57:24 rrsagent, make minutes 18:57:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html jamesn 18:58:04 present+ bryang 18:58:18 present+ jcraig 18:58:38 present+ siri 18:58:52 present+ cyns 18:59:00 present+ Scott_O 18:59:12 rrsagent, make minutes 18:59:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-aria-minutes.html msumner 19:08:58 I'm reviewing the ARIA in HTML doc. Anyone up for a sanity check when I'm done? It should be later today or tomorrow. I haven't been active in the group for some time, so I want to make sure my comments reflect consensus.