17:59:27 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:59:27 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-aria-irc 17:59:29 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:59:31 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 17:59:34 meeting: ARIA WFG 17:59:37 meeting: ARIA WG 17:59:41 chair: JamesNurthen 17:59:49 agendabot, find agenda 17:59:49 jamesn, OK. This may take a minute... 17:59:51 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/1d223877-730c-446f-bfa9-2e9222902112/20220113T130000 17:59:51 clear agenda 17:59:51 agenda+ New Issue Triage 17:59:51 agenda+ New PR Triage 17:59:52 agenda+ Deep Dive planning 17:59:54 agenda+ Inconsistency between native and ARIA listboxes when implicit aria-selected is provided 17:59:57 agenda+ Clarify usage of aria-haspopup 17:59:59 agenda+ ARIA 1.3 - are we ready for FPWD - what is remaining? 18:02:41 present+ Joanmarie_Diggs 18:03:42 aaronlev has joined #aria 18:07:19 Stefan has joined #aria 18:08:07 present+ 18:09:30 present+ 18:10:10 Laurence has joined #aria 18:10:13 present+ 18:10:32 carmacleod has joined #aria 18:10:38 zakim, next item 18:10:38 agendum 1 -- New Issue Triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:10:49 https://github.com/search?l=&q=is:open+is:issue+created:%3E%3D2022-01-06+repo:w3c/aria+repo:w3c/accname+repo:w3c/core-aam+repo:w3c/dpub-aam+repo:w3c/dpub-aria&type=Issues 18:10:56 pkra has joined #aria 18:10:58 present+ 18:11:06 present+ 18:11:07 present+ 18:11:12 https://bit.ly/3GiAKOq 18:11:27 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1673 18:11:38 jamesn: editorial, don't need to worry, duplicate 18:11:44 jamesn: peter can you close? 18:12:11 peter: I'll leave open, the other is closed 18:12:27 https://github.com/w3c/dpub-aria/issues/41 18:12:47 jamesn: I think there isn't anything air related in this.. it's an authoring question... lets move to APG? 18:12:58 sirib has joined #aria 18:13:10 jamesn: moving 18:13:16 zakim, next item 18:13:16 agendum 2 -- New PR Triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:13:17 https://bit.ly/3FlUM9z 18:13:51 zakim, next item 18:13:51 agendum 2 was just opened, spectranaut 18:13:56 zakim, next item 18:13:56 agendum 2 was just opened, spectranaut 18:14:00 zakim, close item 18:14:00 I don't understand 'close item', spectranaut 18:14:20 zakim, close this item 18:14:20 agendum 2 closed 18:14:21 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:14:21 3. Deep Dive planning [from agendabot] 18:14:25 zakim, next item 18:14:25 agendum 3 -- Deep Dive planning -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:14:55 https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates 18:15:23 jamesn: next week, no deep dive, the week after that is sarah's, the next open is first week of February 18:15:53 jamesn: I'll schedule sarah's deep dive in the calendar soon, related to secondary actions on things 18:16:04 zakim, next item 18:16:04 agendum 4 -- Inconsistency between native and ARIA listboxes when implicit aria-selected is provided -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:16:11 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1661 18:17:24 joanie: I don't mind if this is closed.... orca doesn't this do this 18:17:38 joanie: I'm a fan of saying the author needs to set aria-selected 18:18:23 joanie: I don't think we have to change the spec, because the spec says "should" not must 18:18:27 spec: If a user agent provides an implicit aria-selected value for an option, the value SHOULD be true if the option has DOM focus or the listbox has DOM focus and the option is referenced by aria-activedescendant. Otherwise, if a user agent provides an implicit aria-selected value for an option, the value SHOULD be false. 18:18:44 joanie: I think all of aaron's suggestions work. does the working group really think it should be this way? 18:19:44 joanie: sarah says this just doesn't happen in the wild.... but maybe a use case is if you have a list box with three items, and if you tab in a select box and move to item "red", then move focus to submit, red will be selected 18:19:57 joanie: but the spec says if the thing is not focused it no longer has a value 18:20:10 joanie: but maybe sarah's point is more imporant, because it will never happen in practice 18:20:32 aaron: I think chrome adheres to aria-activedescendant when there is no aria-selected 18:21:10 aaron: I asked Dominic why we send aria-activedescendant when you are no longer on a widget, the reason is because of this, we might need that info later 18:21:30 jamesn: if it is a should in the spec but we don't agree with it, then we should change it 18:22:59 joanie: maybe the second is the easiest 18:23:13 MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria 18:23:15 present+ 18:23:23 aaronlev: I think aria-activedescedant on a single select should be used as aria-selected 18:23:40 jamesn: so we should remove the "dom focus" part of that original paragraph 18:24:51 aaronlev: I think that looks right, but we need to run it by the Matt Kings of the world 18:28:24 bryan: if you are using jaws in a certain mode, even though focus isn't set in the listbox, it will announce what the selected option is. But if aria-selected is not set it will not say that something is selected. 18:29:26 bryan: I don't know if this is a behavior issue or something that needs to be speced out 18:30:45 siri: I like the option proposed by aaron, I can see aria-activedescendant being used this way... in this case aria-activedescendant and aria-selected will have the same value 18:31:16 aaron: I like the "alternatively" one, without authoring changes 18:31:31 james: would you be openning a PR with that? 18:32:12 jamesn: would anyone like to open a PR to allow aria-activedescendant being used? 18:32:24 melsumne_: actually I more ok with this than my comment btw 18:32:29 carmacleod: I'll make the PR 18:32:42 zakim, next item 18:32:42 agendum 5 -- Clarify usage of aria-haspopup -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:32:51 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1024 18:33:25 jamesn: we need to talk more before a proposal, says the minutes from the last meeting 18:34:34 bryan: i'll look at it 18:34:38 zakim, next item 18:34:38 agendum 6 -- ARIA 1.3 - are we ready for FPWD - what is remaining? -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:35:16 jamesn: what needs to be done in order to move it forward and get the first public working draft out? 18:35:26 jamesn: there isn't anything in stable other than bug fixes, i believe 18:35:30 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1331 18:35:46 peter: i did update that one issue with the bare minimum ^ 18:35:47 https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/non-parity-1.3-features 18:35:57 jamesn: these are the main features we are considering in 1.3 18:36:09 jamesn: what we need to do in order to get things into the spec is to have implementations 18:36:18 jamesn: and text in APG for how to use these new features 18:36:25 jamesn: the first one we can ignore 18:36:52 jamesn: the rest of them, aria-rowindextext and aria-columnindextext 18:36:56 we need APG for these 18:37:45 jamesn: browser implementations for aria-description? 18:38:02 aaron: something missing from apple, and firefox is missing a small thing, but it's mostly there 18:38:14 jamesn: there is no spec text for core-aam 18:38:35 jamesn: for mark, aria-description, etc... is it n core-aam and my wiki is out of date? 18:38:37 joanie: i think os 18:39:33 jamesn: I need to update the wiki for these PRs on the core-aam editor draft 18:39:35 mark, suggestion, comment, insertion, deletion 18:40:29 aria-description 18:40:39 jamesn: the main things that is missing for all of these is the missing authoring guidance 18:40:52 jamesn: aaron you have examples, correct? 18:40:59 aaronlev: i have a single document 18:41:12 q+ 18:41:30 jcraig: aria-description still says AXHelp in CORE-AAM, which I believe is only correct < OSX 11 18:42:02 spectranaut: I can take a look at these, I need some help understanding exactly what needs to be done 18:42:09 jamesn: I can work with you and assign issues 18:42:19 Here are primitive annotation examples: https://codepen.io/aleventhal/full/VxByVK 18:42:38 jamesn: we need something similar for braille properties 18:43:00 jamesn: my gut feel is that the APG should strongly dissuade people from using them 18:43:10 q+ 18:43:12 ack me 18:43:39 joanie: I'm still not clear on what people would like me to do... 18:43:48 jamesn: we haven't published 1.2 18:44:16 jamesn: core-aam shouldn't hold up things, since we are moving towards evergreen anyway 18:45:29 jamesn: back to the braille ones, maybe we just need to use similar language in the APG 18:46:05 peter: there is another thing we can do, there is an open issue about having extra notes on things int he aria spec that are worse than others. 18:46:45 peter: maybe james brought this up, maybe we should do that in 1.3. add a note that says you should generally not do this. I'm happy to add APG for the braille things. 18:47:22 peter: the examples are too simple, and we shouldn't use these simple examples, and we should point to the APG 18:47:41 peter: in the APG a reasonable, complicated example 18:47:41 18:47:48 I wrote an article that explains why ARIA is so hard to get right / test: https://web.dev/aria-poison-or-antidote/ 18:48:24 it's a good intro for folks not familiar with ARIA 18:48:36 it's a good intro for folks not familiar with ARIA (I think) 18:48:40 jamesn: we need something different than a note, a different color, for these "warning do not use" notes 18:49:07 peter: we do have something in safari 18:49:18 joanie: firefox you get for free, aria-foo gets exposed 18:49:52 aaronlev: I don't know if we are exposing these properties in chrome but I can look 18:49:59 joanie: orca exposes 18:50:15 Chrome doesn't support aria-braillefoo yet 18:50:52 peter: can you file and issue against chrome and cc me? 18:51:34 jamesn: we can add this to adding accessible names and description as a "do not use this in relation to that" 18:51:48 jamesn: we don't have an attributes "don't use these" list 18:51:57 jamesn: (unless you really know what you are doing) 18:52:02 This was the issue https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1480 18:52:25 jamesn: should we add it too these sections? should we have good examples of places to use these? 18:52:46 peter: someone will always use it for things it shouldn't be used for 18:53:18 aaron: you will even see "aria-label" when there is an alt text 18:54:43 peter: I will write things for APG on this 18:56:18 aaron: once these examples are in, we can merge these things into 1.3, and move onto the 1.3 working draft 18:56:23 q- 18:56:34 chris lane: 18:57:38 chris lane: at vm ware, we a have a note to not use aria-modal without using the rest of the application needs to be inert. I couldn't not get my stakeholders to follow that, they used aria-modal anyway. it does say that it is bad, but I couldn't make the case well enough 18:57:47 chris lane: maybe we need an example of why it is bad 18:58:01 chris lane: otherwise people might be resistant? 18:58:14 jamesn: in APG we don't generally give bad examples 18:58:31 chris lane: maybe I should write a bug, I need a stronger user impact 18:58:54 chris lane: maybe I'll write up an issue, I'll do that 18:58:57 jamesn: cool 18:59:24 RRSAgent: make minutes 18:59:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-aria-minutes.html spectranaut