16:52:08 RRSAgent has joined #aria 16:52:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/15-aria-irc 16:52:10 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:52:12 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 16:52:38 Jemma has joined #aria 16:55:48 meeting: ARIA WG 16:55:56 chair: JamesNurthen 16:56:59 agenda+ [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3B3vxrM) 16:56:59 agenda+ [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3yXaa9k) 16:56:59 agenda+ [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/3r6sfiJ) 16:56:59 agenda+ [TPAC 2021 - Diversity Fund](https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/06/diversity-and-inclusion-at-w3c-inclusion-fund-and-fellowships-for-tpac-2021/) 16:57:00 agenda+ [Important Terms](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1509) 16:57:00 agenda+ [When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description?](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57) 16:57:00 agenda+ [Author Test results progress]() 16:57:51 present+ 16:59:07 regrets: SarahHigley CurtBellew StefanSchnabel PeterKrautzberger 17:01:47 present+ Joanmarie_Diggs 17:05:53 thanks so much Jaunita! 17:06:14 WilliamNFCU has joined #aria 17:06:19 agenda? 17:06:28 Jaunita_George has joined #aria 17:06:31 Present+ 17:06:39 Jory has joined #aria 17:06:42 Scribe: Jaunita_George 17:07:05 Jory has joined #aria 17:07:22 zakim, next item 17:07:22 agendum 1 -- [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3B3vxrM) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:08:23 James: So these two new issues are based on some conversations I've been having with Marcus about the ARIA spec. There's an agenda item later for this. I propose closing this item and addressing this later 17:08:39 s/Marcus/Marcos/ 17:08:40 Zakim, close this item 17:08:40 agendum 1 closed 17:08:41 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:08:41 2. [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3yXaa9k) [from jamesn] 17:08:48 zakim, next item 17:08:48 agendum 2 -- [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3yXaa9k) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:08:55 MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria 17:08:58 present+ 17:09:25 jamesn: These are relating to the same thing, so propose deferring until later 17:09:31 Zakim, close this item 17:09:33 agendum 2 closed 17:09:33 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:09:33 3. [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/3r6sfiJ) [from jamesn] 17:09:38 Zakim, next item 17:09:38 agendum 3 -- [Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/3r6sfiJ) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:09:44 present+ 17:09:59 jamesn: Anyone have anything they'd like to propose? 17:10:25 Cynthia: Test case working group 17:10:27 present+ 17:11:13 jamesn: We'll do that next week 17:11:31 jamesn: Will send agenda as soon as possible. 17:11:55 Zakim, next item 17:11:55 agendum 4 -- [TPAC 2021 - Diversity Fund](https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/06/diversity-and-inclusion-at-w3c-inclusion-fund-and-fellowships-for-tpac-2021/) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:12:32 jamesn: Jemma is there anything you want to add? 17:12:49 Jemma: I was a recipient. I encourage you to apply. 17:13:20 Jemma: We'll be sharing our awardees in mid-August 17:13:58 jamesn: This year is different 17:14:17 Jemma: We're awarding smaller amounts because there isn't travel this year 17:14:29 jamesn: There's leftover funds from 2020, right? 17:14:51 Jemma: We don't quite need to worry, because there are few applicants 17:15:15 jamesn: Don't be discouraged from applying because we have funding for those who qualify 17:16:08 Cynthia: Is participation important 17:16:36 Jemma: Good opportunity to be recognized or get involved with the W3C 17:17:34 jamesn: W3C's largest cross-group meeting 17:18:14 jamesn: Next year it will be in Vancouver 17:18:50 Jemma: It sometimes costs a lot to go to TPAC, so the scholarship can be helpful 17:19:22 Applications opened today, until August 15, 2021 17:19:34 jamesn: Applications are open until August 15th. Meeting is either in September or October 17:20:17 week of 18 Oct: breakouts; week of 24 Oct: group meetings 17:20:23 jamesn: Scholarship covers items needed to attend virtually. 17:20:42 Jemma: Does this cover fee waivers? 17:20:44 (Note: being designed for people who would like to participate in our standards work or who already do, the form requires applicants to have a W3C account. Request one here.) The application form gives information on eligibility and how the applications will be assessed. Please, share this information with your teams, your friends that are concerned with TPAC participation, on your social networks, enterprise networks, at virtual meet-ups, etc. 17:20:44 Also, consider encouraging someone directly if you think W3C could benefit from their attendance at TPAC.) 17:20:51 https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/06/diversity-and-inclusion-at-w3c-inclusion-fund-and-fellowships-for-tpac-2021/ 17:21:06 MichaelC: Fee waivers are addressed separately 17:21:46 jamesn: Can you help encourage organizers to add the website. 17:21:53 MichaelC: Okay 17:22:15 zakim, next item 17:22:15 agendum 5 -- [Important Terms](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1509) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:24:49 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1510/files 17:24:49 jamesn: We exported all of those terms to the broader cross-reference in web-ref. We now have terms that are causing conflicts with other terms in other specs, which is reasonable. Some are easy, and removing the export is easy to do. But there are a number of terms we're defining in our specification that we're defining general terms like "event." We've been advised to stop doing that. We have a pull request on the spec to remove t[CUT] 17:26:13 jamesn: The major terms we're proposing to remove are: "attribute," "element," "DOM string," a few others as well such as "normative" 17:26:14 BGaraventa has joined #aria 17:26:16 cyns has joined #aria 17:26:56 jamesn: There's a whole bunch in this Pull Request where we're proposing removing the definitions completely. I would like some comments on this and folks to review this. 17:28:15 jamesn: "Node" should refer to "DOM Node." "Attribute" and "element" don't have the same issue. 17:28:53 jamesn: "This needs some care and attention to make sure changes are correct" 17:30:26 jamesn: I'm happy to get rid of "DOM string" and "element." We should align to the definition used in markup languages. Why haven't we been doing it? 17:30:44 MichaelC: Wasn't a precedent at the time to do so. 17:31:23 jamesn: It's maybe time to remove a bit more of it. 17:31:38 MichaelC: We haven't done a purge, just carried items forward. 17:32:15 jamesn: We should be referring to other specifications where it makes sense. 17:32:25 jamesn: Any dissent? 17:32:29 question about opposite case - how do we deal with other spec, ACT to defin aria term? 17:32:45 +1 for clean up 17:32:53 +1 for clean up 17:34:32 jamesn: I'm going to work on this a bit more. Marcus wants to go further and added a few comments. 17:34:49 ..."accessible object" should be "accessible node" 17:35:16 +1 17:35:20 Cynthia: I think we used "accessible object" intentionally to distinguish it from nodes 17:35:58 jamesn: Marcus wants definitions to be normative and not informative. 17:36:24 MichaelC: We had an explicit decision to make them informative, but cannot recall why 17:37:02 jamesn: WCAG has normative definitions, correct? What impact does that have? 17:37:24 MichaelC: I haven't heard any issues, but there are issues passing new success criteria. 17:38:22 jamesn: The issue with not making them not normative is that Respec will show warnings if you try to link to terms. 17:38:55 jamesn: Anyone else using our references will run into same issues 17:39:08 MichaelC: I ignore Respec warnings 17:39:38 ...it is ideal to not have warnings so we should ask Respec to remove warnings 17:39:57 Cynthia: Should we just make them normative? 17:40:19 jamesn: We could break others' specs if we decide to revisit that decision later 17:41:01 Matt: I do see a problem having a normative statement return a definition that's not normative. Adds ambiguity. 17:41:23 ...How many of our statements are exposed in that way 17:41:43 jamesn: Probably not many, but do not know offhand for sure 17:42:02 Matt: We should not move forward without knowing the answer to that question. 17:42:19 jamesn: I am concerned about scope of this Pull Request 17:42:38 Matt: +100 17:43:08 +1 17:43:13 jamesn: I will close the comments that are being made in the PR and create an issue. 17:44:23 +1 to michael 17:44:28 + 1 to solve the problme where the problem is located. 17:44:31 MichaelC: We should be solving the problem we're trying to solve. Is the issue the warnings? 17:45:01 zakim, next item 17:45:01 agendum 6 -- [When is hidden content taken into calculation of name and description?](https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/57) -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:45:03 Thanks again for all your work, James 17:45:21 apologies, can't unmute due to noisy environment 17:45:22 jamesn: What's the status 17:45:45 joanmarie: I don't know the resolution. 17:45:59 Cynthia: No discussions as far as I know. 17:47:10 jamesn: Aria-describedby is referencing a hidden span and still reading. 17:47:44 https://github.com/adobe/react-spectrum/pull/2102 17:48:04 Matt: Isn't that correct? 17:48:06 https://reactspectrum.blob.core.windows.net/reactspectrum/674b18a8de35c388d5f289a7be8a1b4b77d3561f/storybook/index.html?path=/story/accordion--default 17:48:39 https://reactspectrum.blob.core.windows.net/reactspectrum/674b18a8de35c388d5f289a7be8a1b4b77d3561f/storybook/iframe.html?id=tooltiptrigger--default&providerSwitcher-locale=&providerSwitcher-theme=&providerSwitcher-scale=&providerSwitcher-toastPosition=bottom&viewMode=story 17:48:43 Cynthia: Apple has an implementation issue that interferes with this 17:49:21 Cynthia: Reference minutes from two weeks ago. 17:49:34 hidden elements don't have roles 17:50:20 Matt: Hidden items should be included. 17:50:42 jamesn: Here the parent is hidden and you're referencing the child of that hidden element 17:51:39 17:51:56 17:53:33 Cynthia: Apple takes the first level, so children of hidden items don't make it into the rendered DOM 17:54:01 Cynthia: The spec text is ambiguous as to what should happen here. 17:54:29 Deep dive +1 17:54:36 deep dive +1 17:55:26 Cynthia: Joanie and I will discuss next week 17:55:32 zakim, next item 17:55:32 agendum 7 -- [Author Test results progress]() -- taken up [from jamesn] 17:55:46 jamesn: Deep dive next week on this 17:56:28 ...Joanie, can I ask you to review the PRs? 17:56:35 Joanie: Already done. 17:56:43 jamesn: I'll merge them 17:57:01 jamesn: It would be awesome if more people could contribute. 17:58:08 jamesn: Will fix up and merge those. Please volunteer to do these though. 17:58:18 17:58:18 Dialog MUST have name 17:58:18 17:58:18 17:58:18 17:58:19 17:58:19 17:58:19 17:58:19 17:58:19 17:58:47 jamesn: More people should be writing tests. 18:00:20 jamesn: 20 or so test cases will be needed. 18:00:27 got to jump off to another meeting 18:00:50 ...actually 15 test cases 18:01:21 wow! 18:01:35 that is awesome, Jaunita and William 18:02:30 zakim, make minutes 18:02:30 I don't understand 'make minutes', Jaunita_George 18:02:41 rrs agent, make minutes 18:02:58 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:02:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/15-aria-minutes.html Jaunita_George 19:01:58 jongund has joined #aria