16:59:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:59:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/04-aria-irc
16:59:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:59:43 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
16:59:46 <MarkMcCarthy> present+
16:59:48 <jamesn> present+
16:59:50 <StefanS> present+
16:59:50 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
16:59:51 <joanie> present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
16:59:53 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
16:59:54 <pkra> present+
16:59:58 <jamesn> chair: JamesNurthen
17:01:10 <jamesn> agenda+ [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3CH8cfG)
17:01:10 <jamesn> agenda+  [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3wcnVRy)
17:01:10 <jamesn> agenda+  [Deep Dive planning](https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates)
17:01:10 <jamesn> agenda+  [Updating ARIA 1.2 due to IDL implementations (exit and re-enter CR?)](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1598)
17:01:11 <jamesn> agenda+  [A role for indicating whether a given ruby represents phonetics ](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1620)
17:01:11 <jamesn> agenda+  [Updated spec text to reflect the processing of hidden elements when c…](https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/137)
17:01:11 <jamesn> agenda+  [Clarify how "otherwise interactive" relates to overriding the none/presentation role](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1628)
17:01:12 <jamesn> agenda+  [clarify img naming steps](https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/pull/322)
17:02:01 <spectranaut> present+
17:02:10 <spectranaut> scribe: spectranaut
17:02:16 <spectranaut> zakim, first item
17:02:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'first item', spectranaut
17:02:22 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:02:22 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- [New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/3CH8cfG) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:02:33 <sarah_higley> sarah_higley has joined #aria
17:02:37 <sarah_higley> present+
17:03:18 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1636
17:04:04 <spectranaut> jamesn: let's leave this to simmer for a bit and discuss next week
17:04:39 <spectranaut> jamesn: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1634 move to practices?
17:06:13 <spectranaut> jamesn: https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/146 agenda+ for next week.
17:06:37 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1632
17:06:44 <spectranaut> jamesn: why not support on role="group"?
17:07:03 <spectranaut> aaron: seems like it get revoked, maybe not intentionally?
17:07:15 <spectranaut> aaron: fieldset is a group, and fieldset you can still disable
17:08:07 <spectranaut> stefan: original idea declare an entire group, all children get disabled. old discussion
17:08:26 <spectranaut> jamesn: milestone 1.3? anyone want to be assigned to determine a proposal?
17:08:35 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: scott already has a PR for it
17:08:47 <spectranaut> jamesn: is this a deuplicate?
17:09:09 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: related to aria-disable 1130 issue...
17:09:32 <spectranaut> jamesn: milestone 1.3, lets revist after the other issue is resolved.
17:09:41 <sohara> sohara has joined #aria
17:09:43 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1630
17:10:11 <spectranaut> jamesn: spec or practices?
17:10:44 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: we just moved an issue over to APG related to overflow tabs, seems related to this and secondary tabs.
17:11:00 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: you can assign to me
17:11:18 <spectranaut> jamesn: milestone 1.3 not to lose
17:11:29 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1629
17:11:45 <spectranaut> scott: you can assign this issue to me, but not a 1.3 issue....
17:11:56 <spectranaut> jamesn: does this need normative changes?
17:11:59 <spectranaut> scott: no
17:12:34 <spectranaut> jamesn: maybe brennan can do it?
17:12:43 <spectranaut> jamesn: let's ask him
17:13:00 <spectranaut> jamesn: I won't assign it to you yet, but we can come back and assign you later on if need be
17:13:10 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:13:10 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- [New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/3wcnVRy) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:13:54 <spectranaut> jamesn: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1635 ready to merge
17:14:03 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/pull/354
17:15:29 <spectranaut> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/pull/350 needs review
17:15:47 <bkardell_> bkardell_ has joined #aria
17:15:57 <spectranaut> scott: will need implementation when lands. no aria-spec impact, just html
17:16:06 <spectranaut> jamesn: we should have implementation review
17:16:16 <spectranaut> jcraig: I'll review
17:16:29 <spectranaut> aaron: I'll review
17:16:46 <spectranaut> joanie: I'll review
17:16:57 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:16:57 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- [Deep Dive planning](https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:17:13 <aaronlev> aaronlev has joined #aria
17:17:16 <spectranaut> jamesn: next week I can't do the deep dive
17:17:35 <spectranaut> jamesn: anyone else on holiday?
17:18:00 <spectranaut> jamesn: I guess we should meet next week!
17:18:26 <spectranaut> jamesn: because we have so much to do, but no deep dive. if you have a topic for the following week, please send
17:18:30 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:18:30 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- [Updating ARIA 1.2 due to IDL implementations (exit and re-enter CR?)](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1598) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:18:48 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1633
17:18:49 <spectranaut> jamesn: I created a pr based on our discussions during the meeting last week
17:19:23 <spectranaut> jamesn: I would like more reviews
17:19:43 <spectranaut> jamesn: we have no implementation in a shipping spec of IDL
17:19:51 <spectranaut> jcraig: only in the browsers
17:21:15 <spectranaut> jamesn: can aaron ping dominic?
17:21:38 <spectranaut> aaronlev: yes
17:22:15 <spectranaut> jamesn: I'll try pining dominic and anna in the thread?
17:22:45 <spectranaut> jamesn: this is the most urgent thing we are doing, it is the blocker for 1.2, I would appreciate as much review as possible on this!!!!
17:24:36 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:24:36 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- [A role for indicating whether a given ruby represents phonetics ](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1620) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:25:25 <spectranaut> jamesn: is there still work to do on this?
17:25:37 <siri> siri has joined #aria
17:26:06 <spectranaut> jcraig: seems like he is open to us closing it
17:26:33 <spectranaut> jamesn: can I leave it to you and aaronlev to finalize these issues and close it out?
17:26:43 <spectranaut> jcraig: I'm going to close the issue, and if we need to reopen we can
17:26:55 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:26:55 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- [Updated spec text to reflect the processing of hidden elements when c…](https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/137) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:27:22 <jcraig> s/the issue/issues 1619 and 1620/
17:28:01 <spectranaut> aaronlev:  I feel like the innertext was a nice simplification until we realized there were too many details
17:29:01 <spectranaut> aaronlev: firefox doesn't implement it quite correctly
17:29:14 <spectranaut> jamesn: having inconsistent implementations.... is a problem
17:29:24 <spectranaut> jamesn: is your solution for chrome a solution other people could use?
17:29:45 <spectranaut> aaronlev: I think so, you can make an accessible object for a dom node even it is not in the final platform tree
17:29:53 <spectranaut> aaronlev: it might be harder in other browsers
17:30:19 <spectranaut> aaronlev: because of the number of accesisbility APIs we support, with only one tree in blink, and we have to send from render to browser process... we have ways of skipping nodes in output
17:30:30 <spectranaut> aaronlev: when we are computing name we can use fuller tree
17:30:44 <spectranaut> aaronlev: I think firefox will have to move to that model as well
17:31:12 <spectranaut> jamesn: does the fact that we don't have consistent implementations mean we can get to CR, or it's ok because it has always been broken?
17:31:27 <spectranaut> aaronlev: chrome, we can do it based on the spec now or based on some different innertext thing
17:31:41 <joanie> q+ To ask what exactly what the spec says now means
17:31:46 <spectranaut> aaronlev: probably firefox and webkit can support current spec, but its probably harder
17:31:58 <spectranaut> aaronlev: we are flexible if you want to do something else
17:34:05 <jamesn> ack joanie
17:34:05 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to ask what exactly what the spec says now means
17:34:10 <spectranaut> jamesn: currently everything is broken in a different way
17:34:47 <spectranaut> joanie: what do you mean when you say what you implemented what the spec says... I think the spec says don't go down the tree!
17:35:06 <spectranaut> joanie: apple does what the spec currently confusingly says
17:35:36 <spectranaut> joanie: the spec is in accname, if the div is hidden, it's innertext, but any children that are not directly references by the idea of aria-labelled by, they are not included
17:36:38 <spectranaut> jcraig: brian wrote the first version of the spec change, I clarified, pull 137 -- if chrome is doing that specifically, but this PR mentions innerText, chrome is not using innerText?
17:36:52 <spectranaut> jcraig: aaronlev can you reply with PR changes to match your implementation...?
17:37:36 <pkra> sorry, have to drop off.
17:38:19 <spectranaut> matt_king: joanie, your summary... I thought the whole purpose was for this to be understandable by users, web authors who are trying to make accessible labels. my interpretation of what aaronlev was saying is that chrome is doing what people thought the spec is meant to say. What the spec actually says is bizarre and unexpected.
17:38:39 <spectranaut> matt_king: I thought the point was to clear up and include the tree
17:38:54 <spectranaut> aaronlev: you might want to have a hidden label or description..
17:39:46 <jcraig> q+
17:40:26 <spectranaut> bryan: .... a real world example I couldn't catch!
17:40:45 <spectranaut> matt_kind: good example
17:40:59 <spectranaut> matt_king: is there a concern with the new proposal?
17:40:59 <jamesn> ack jcraig
17:41:16 <MarkMcCarthy> s/matt_kind: good/matt_king: good
17:42:26 <spectranaut> jcraig: if part of the label is displayed, and part not displayed, how do we computer? Once the ancestor is not displayed, we don't care why the sub level elements are not displayed.
17:42:43 <spectranaut> jcraig: I don't think we should exposed those substrings willy nilly
17:43:05 <spectranaut> jcraig: what is the PR change we can review, the devil is in the details, I can't tell you what I think until we see the PR
17:44:04 <jamesn> q+
17:44:07 <StefanS> q+
17:44:09 <spectranaut> aaronlev: I don't think the double hidden is a real case. if people used aria-label... probably because it's in the dom already. if you have double hidden, you can expect predictable behavoir
17:44:12 <jamesn> q+ bryan
17:44:51 <jamesn> q-
17:45:15 <jamesn> q++ bryan
17:45:21 <jamesn> q-+
17:45:42 <aaronlev> q+
17:45:48 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: we reference tool tips via labelled-by or described by, it's hidden until you have focus, but we want the labelledby or describedby to be consistent. tooltips contain whatever text you want, some of it is display none, the displaynone in the displaynone tool tip I would expect as an author for it to NOT be used
17:46:01 <spectranaut> matt_king: I can't imagine a display-none in a display-none
17:46:11 <spectranaut> sarah_higley: it might be aria-hidden....
17:46:22 <spectranaut> matt_king: I can understand that
17:46:48 <jamesn> q+
17:46:59 <spectranaut> jcraig: sometimes password fields have a bunch of rules, but only the unfullfilled criteria will be visible
17:47:40 <spectranaut> stefan: is there a general idea of how to handle these nested situations generally???
17:47:53 <jamesn> ack ste
17:47:58 <jamesn> ack bry
17:48:07 <spectranaut> bryan: in the case where it is area hidden... it doesn't matter what is on the inside
17:48:14 <jamesn> ack aa
17:48:16 <StefanS> q-
17:48:35 <spectranaut> aaronlev: the problem with display none is that there is implementation problems. the browser will do many optimizations.
17:49:04 <spectranaut> aaronlev: a lot of styling is not applied, its hard to have a special rule about display-none subtrees
17:49:33 <jamesn> ack me
17:49:35 <spectranaut> aaronlev: if people want hidden sub trees in display-none... they would have to use aria-hidden, every other way of hiding something would not have an impact
17:49:44 <spectranaut> jamesn: sounds feasible
17:49:55 <jcraig> q+
17:50:21 <spectranaut> jamesn: while we may have one user agent that works, we don't have consistency, so authors who are using this stuff are already broken. I don't care about breaking authors who are already broken in a slightly different way.
17:51:01 <spectranaut> jcraig: aaronlev mentioned the only thing that can hid substrings in hidden elements is "aria-hidden=false", I don't think this is a fair expectation for web authors
17:52:01 <spectranaut> jcraig: if you landed on the tool tip, and it is displayed, then you follow the expectations of hidden vs not hidden. if you land on the tool tip and it is NOT displayed for some reason, the aria-describedby is going to follow different rules
17:52:36 <spectranaut> jamesn: displayed vs not displayed should not change the value
17:52:44 <jamesn> agenda?
17:52:58 <jcraig> q+ to defend innertext
17:52:58 <spectranaut> matt_king: I was going to say that might not be the best example.
17:53:37 <spectranaut> jamesn: there might not be much to gain with this discussion. someone needs to come up with another example/fix for us to change our mind on the current change proposed
17:54:51 <spectranaut> jcraig: if we make this change, we have three working implementations. aaronlev did point out some edge cases, I would propose that if that is the case, then we should point out that case in the implementation of innerText its self. it if it is the wrong value for accessibility, then maybe it's wrong for the web generally
17:55:04 <spectranaut> jamesn: I doubt innertext will change for this
17:56:19 <jamesn> agenda?
17:56:28 <aaronlev> maybe a deep dive topic?
17:56:49 <jcraig> +1
17:56:54 <spectranaut> bryan: I will put example in this PR
17:57:05 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:57:05 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, spectranaut
17:57:06 <jcraig> s/its self/itself/
17:57:33 <spectranaut> queue?
17:57:41 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1628
17:57:44 <spectranaut> ack jcraig
17:57:44 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to defend innertext
17:57:50 <spectranaut> zakim, next item
17:57:50 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- [Clarify how "otherwise interactive" relates to overriding the none/presentation role](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1628) -- taken up [from jamesn]
17:58:12 <spectranaut> jcraig: one of the webkit implementers raised this
17:58:34 <spectranaut> jcraig: I think this means the spec is right but could use some clarification, and all the implementations are wrong in this case,
17:59:02 <jamesn> q+
17:59:07 <spectranaut> jcraig: if this element is interactive (including if its focusable), then the presentation role should be ignored.
17:59:56 <spectranaut> jcraig: onClick should make something interactive and none role should be ignored?
18:00:02 <spectranaut> jcraig: what about drag events?
18:00:38 <spectranaut> jcraig: should we take delegation into consideration? like click event on body? everything can't be excluded from presentation
18:01:01 <spectranaut> jamesn: lets discuss in the issue!
18:01:16 <spectranaut> zakim, make minutes
18:01:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', spectranaut
18:01:45 <spectranaut> RRSAgent: make minutes
18:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/04-aria-minutes.html spectranaut
19:14:56 <jongunderson> jongunderson has joined #aria