16:58:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
16:58:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-aria-irc
16:58:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:58:06 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
16:58:07 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
16:58:16 <jamesn> chair: spectranaut
16:58:23 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
16:58:23 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
16:58:23 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/2b92a902-1365-4ea0-8c68-9f8ae2106fe3/20220609T130000
16:58:23 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:58:23 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3Q3mpL9
16:58:24 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3xoA9J6
16:58:26 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates
16:58:29 <agendabot> agenda+  -> OpenUI is asking the TAG for the review of focus groups https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/732
16:58:32 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Does aria-hidden obey DOM or AX tree ancestors? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1714
16:58:35 <agendabot> agenda+  -> 1.3 triage https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+no%3Aassignee
17:00:26 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #aria
17:00:30 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
17:00:58 <pkra> present+
17:01:02 <arigilmore> arigilmore has joined #aria
17:01:05 <StefanS> present+
17:01:19 <myasonik> myasonik has joined #aria
17:01:49 <spectranaut> present+
17:01:55 <MarkMcCarthy> present+
17:02:05 <jamesn> present+
17:04:19 <pkra> scribe: pkra
17:04:24 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:04:24 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3Q3mpL9 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:05:23 <pkra> valerie: 1.4 milestone?
17:05:51 <pkra> jnurthen: different names - also pills, tags etc.
17:06:16 <pkra> ... close as duplicate?
17:06:23 <pkra> valerieyoung: other one has lots of comments.
17:06:47 <pkra> ... let's close as duplicate.
17:07:17 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:07:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3xoA9J6 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:07:31 <pkra> valerieyoung: no new PRs
17:07:33 <pkra> zakim, close item
17:07:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', pkra
17:07:35 <pkra> zakim, close this item
17:07:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
17:07:36 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:07:36 <Zakim> 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot]
17:07:41 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:07:41 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:07:54 <jamesn> regrets+ CurtBellew
17:07:54 <pkra> valerieyoung: currently no deep dives planned.
17:08:02 <pkra> ... any interest?
17:08:13 <jamesn> regrets+ HarrisSchneiderman
17:08:18 <pkra> dakahn: notification deep dive still planned?
17:08:33 <pkra> jnurthen: did we want to?
17:08:40 <pkra> dakahn: thought so.
17:08:42 <MarkMcCarthy> regrets+ CurtBellew SarahHigley
17:09:04 <pkra> jnurthen: I'll double check
17:09:11 <MarkMcCarthy> regrets+ BryanGaraventa
17:09:13 <pkra> ... did you mean pop ups?
17:09:16 <pkra> dakahn: yes.
17:09:25 <pkra> valerieyoung: waiting for Aaron to be back.
17:09:46 <pkra> jnurthen: there's a google doc somewhere with significantly different proposal
17:10:02 <aaronlev> aaronlev has joined #aria
17:10:12 <pkra> cyns: sounds about right.
17:10:26 <aaronlev> I can't make it today, but I'll listen in on IRC in case anyone needs anything
17:11:15 <pkra> jnurthen: aaron waiting for more feedback first.
17:11:24 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:11:24 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> OpenUI is asking the TAG for the review of focus groups https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/732 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:11:45 <pkra> valerieyoung: just an announcement. early design review for focusgroup
17:12:00 <pkra> zakim, close item
17:12:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', pkra
17:12:02 <pkra> zakim, close this item
17:12:02 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
17:12:03 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:12:03 <Zakim> 5. -> Does aria-hidden obey DOM or AX tree ancestors? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1714 [from agendabot]
17:12:05 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:12:05 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- -> Does aria-hidden obey DOM or AX tree ancestors? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1714 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:12:16 <pkra> valerieyoung: continuing the discussion from last meeting
17:12:59 <pkra> ... first we decided that hidden should obey AX tree. But James Teh disagreed, Aaron thinks it's worth discussing.
17:13:10 <pkra> ... what is the intution for authors.
17:13:13 <aaronlev> James Teh's POV makes sense to me
17:13:21 <aaronlev> on aria-hidden + aria-owns
17:13:52 <pkra> mattking: also practicality. Are there some real use cases to think about where someone would put aria-hidden on an element that owns something - and what do they expect.
17:14:11 <pkra> cyns: I raised this. Probalby good to check what's being used  / what we might break.
17:14:47 <pkra> mattking: so what does the current world look like? Not propagating down AX tree - but descendants?
17:14:52 <pkra> cyns: descendants yes, owns no.
17:15:43 <pkra> mattking: aria-owns is meant to affect AX tree structure so what is the expectation that aria-hidden.
17:15:50 <pkra> valerieyoung: no browsers hide owned elements.
17:16:00 <pkra> cyns: is there content out there? how much? does it rely on that?
17:16:14 <pkra> mattking: how did this start?
17:16:26 <aaronlev> There wasn't a real known example
17:16:31 <aaronlev> It was theoretical
17:16:35 <pkra> valerieyoung: aaron asked, trying to decide what's meant.
17:16:43 <pkra> cyns: spec is unclear.
17:17:13 <pkra> valerieyoung: let's look at the spec
17:18:27 <pkra> ... element considered hidden if it or its ancestors are not rendered or aria-hidden=true
17:18:45 <pkra> cyns: unclear which kinds of ancestor.
17:19:13 <pkra> mattking: we had similar issues around descendant
17:19:22 <pkra> cyns: implementors tend to assume 'dom'
17:19:50 <pkra> mattking: we tend to not limit ARIA to DOM
17:20:19 <pkra> cyns: we could use "host language tree" vs "accessibility tree"
17:21:17 <pkra> mattking: feels like we need to give ourselves the language to talk about this clearly
17:21:36 <pkra> ... feels to me we should do no change until then
17:22:08 <aaronlev> How about:
17:22:12 <aaronlev> We could say ancestor/descendant always means AX tree
17:22:19 <aaronlev> except in case of aria-hidden
17:22:34 <aaronlev> Because the aria-hidden property could say "Use of aria-hidden combined with aria-owns is undefined"
17:22:37 <aaronlev> to scare ppl away
17:22:46 <aaronlev> undefined or invalid
17:22:53 <pkra> ... since this didn't come from practices but implementors it might not be too urgent
17:23:01 <pkra> cyns: if we don't find use cases, we can just go ahead and clarify
17:23:39 <pkra> jnurthen: I think it's possible there are uses cases and they might just have propagated aria-hidden to aria-owned elements
17:23:59 <pkra> ... aria-owns is already complex, so that seems likely.
17:24:10 <pkra> mattking: makes sense.
17:24:29 <pkra> jnurthen: not just element, but also walking down the tree etc.
17:24:42 <pkra> cyns: might shadow boundaries  get in the way?
17:24:47 <pkra> jnurthen: certainly
17:25:30 <pkra> mattking: you don't always know how to walk the tree. you might have a container and you don't know what's inside.
17:26:06 <pkra> jnurthen: seems odd for a container to aria-own something outside the parent
17:26:16 <pkra> mattking: fair point. I don't want to make up use cases.
17:27:11 <pkra> cyns: we could make a PR to clarify and share it with people writing component libraries
17:27:22 <pkra> valerieyoung: sounds great. any volunteers?
17:27:29 <pkra> cyns: can help sharing them.
17:27:38 <pkra> mattking: we should sort out the vocabulary
17:27:53 <pkra> valerieyoung:  good point. we should double check.
17:28:09 <pkra> cyns: accessibility tree appears in spec. but still
17:29:45 <pkra> pkra: there's at least one issue to go through spec to sort out language for owned/descendant
17:29:48 <pkra> ... https://github.com/w3c/aria/projects/16
17:29:52 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
17:30:01 <Matt_King> present+
17:30:07 <pkra> jnurthen: element now references concept in DOM
17:30:17 <pkra> ... hidden we still reference ARIA hidden since it's not anywhere else
17:30:39 <pkra> cyns: sounds like editorial work
17:31:25 <pkra> zakim, next item
17:31:25 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- -> 1.3 triage https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+no%3Aassignee -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:32:46 <pkra> valerieyoung:  Name from author on column header & structural relationships #1219
17:34:14 <pkra> pkra: scott comments points to html-aam
17:34:19 <pkra> valerieyoung: great. closing.
17:34:57 <pkra> ...  May a treeitem contain interactive elements? #1251
17:35:35 <pkra> pkra: more editorial, "good first issue" tag
17:36:36 <pkra> valerieyoung: good first issue should probably have a template.
17:36:38 <pkra> pkra: I'll do it.
17:36:53 <pkra> valerieyoung:  aria-busy language update in Required Owned Element section #1300
17:37:54 <pkra> jnurthen: this probably goes away if Sarah's PR is merged.
17:38:35 <pkra> mattking: allowed owned is less restrictive than required owned?
17:39:04 <pkra> jnurthen: is it though? There seems to be a dual intent, mish mash / different sets of expected
17:39:22 <pkra> mattking: I remember now. We've used it but inconsistently.
17:39:52 <pkra> ... do we list everything that could be allowed? Not sure.
17:39:59 <pkra> jnurthen: I think so but should double check
17:40:29 <pkra> ... we really only use it on composite widgets
17:40:36 <pkra> ... so it's limited in scope
17:41:02 <pkra> mattking: there's a PR?
17:41:11 <pkra> jnurthen: not sure. Sarah was working on something.
17:41:20 <pkra> valerieyoung: james, can you ask Sarah?
17:41:25 <pkra> jnurthen: will look.
17:41:58 <pkra> valerieyoung:  update owned element definition #1301
17:42:07 <pkra> ... I'll take that.
17:42:18 <pkra> valerieyoung:  Reword banner, contentinfo, main to use "on a page" instead of "within any document or application" #1320
17:43:24 <pkra> ari: I can do it.
17:44:29 <pkra> valeriyoung: next:  aria-haspopup with value treegrid? #1333
17:45:25 <pkra> mattking: aaron and I had discussed hasPopUp. I should probably do this alongside the other hasPopUp
17:45:40 <pkra> valeriyoung: next:  Extend support for aria-expanded to the radio role #1404
17:46:16 <pkra> mattking: did we not discuss this already?
17:46:31 <pkra> jnurthen: we have but it keeps coming up.
17:46:37 <pkra> ... from people with UX research.
17:46:40 <pkra> ... here, gov UK
17:47:16 <pkra> stephan: a lot of good questions in there.
17:47:59 <pkra> mattking: I don't know if I comment but there's a risk for overload for AT users.
17:48:12 <pkra> stephan: these patterns appear all over
17:48:37 <pkra> ... I think there's some reasoning for this
17:48:56 <MarkMcCarthy> +1 Stefan
17:49:08 <pkra> mattking: would this be an easy change (from the spec)?
17:49:31 <pkra> jnurthen: is there a benefit for users?
17:49:55 <pkra> mattking: I'm imagining arrowing through a radio group. I'd assume the name of the radio would give some indication.
17:50:10 <pkra> ... if you hear "selected" and "expanded", how often would you have a case where they don't mean the same thing?
17:50:54 <pkra> ... if the expected behavior is expansion, then it's noise. Compare haspopup on combobox.
17:51:17 <pkra> stephan: problem that radio button groups that don't have it and some have it. how do we differentiate.
17:52:10 <pkra> mattking: I don't think it helps to add "expanded". You learn by selecting it and hitting tab, finding new content.
17:52:37 <pkra> ... feels to me the content designer, writing copy for radios, should be responsible to ensure the context is understood; then it won't be surprising.
17:53:09 <pkra> stephan: because there's a visual change in the UI.
17:53:24 <pkra> ... isn't it beneficial that a blind user gets informed?
17:53:40 <pkra> mattking: the assumption would be that a blind user understands that
17:53:55 <pkra> jnurthen: reading through it, they did user testing.
17:54:16 <pkra> ... positive case of checkbox. For radio button, unclear.
17:54:22 <pkra> ... maybe ask for follow up study.
17:54:50 <pkra> valerieyoung: sounds like we should ask about user research
17:55:06 <pkra> jnurthen: later on "we don't have the resources to do extra research' :(
17:55:22 <pkra> ... we have something from the last discussion.
17:56:00 <pkra> valerieyoung: do we want to say that we move it to 1.4 but if use cases / research comes in we'll reconsidered.
17:56:32 <pkra> jnurthen: feels to me something wants to satisify an interpretation of wcag rather than user benefits.
17:57:02 <pkra> mattking: +1. You don't need to explain everything. You drown people in instructions.
17:58:00 <pkra> stephan: last comment: checkbox is reversible, radio button is not. this makes it more complicated.
17:58:16 <pkra> mattking: expanded is normally on something that you can expand and collapse. here you can't.
18:00:03 <bkardell_> bkardell_ has joined #aria
18:00:07 <pkra> jnurthen: reading through this, example of "email / phone / text message". Email would be expanded, the others would not say "collapsed". Is that potentially useful if using a virtual cursor.
18:00:20 <pkra> mattking: what are the clues that any user has about how it works.
18:00:41 <pkra> ... if they were doing something different to these radio buttons that would be an interesting question.
18:01:14 <pkra> ... is it from looking at UI or interacting with UI.
18:01:29 <pkra> jnurthen: might this be more useful
18:01:37 <pkra> cyns: there's also a vertical line to associate it.
18:01:48 <pkra> jnurthen: but doesn't show it will go away
18:02:12 <pkra> mattking: feels to me selected has same meaning as expanded here.
18:02:34 <pkra> cyns: here yes, but not always.
18:03:28 <pkra> valerieyoung: there's also the case "other" with a text field. like matt said, that's a sign.
18:03:37 <pkra> mattking: right. that's very common.
18:03:50 <pkra> valerieyoung: ok. let's move to 1.4
18:05:32 <MarkMcCarthy> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:05:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy
18:05:36 <MarkMcCarthy> zakim, who is here?
18:05:37 <Zakim> Present: pkra, StefanS, spectranaut, MarkMcCarthy, jamesn, Matt_King
18:05:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see bkardell_, Matt_King, aaronlev, myasonik, arigilmore, pkra, StefanS, RRSAgent, Zakim, jamesn, MarkMcCarthy, dakahn, tzviya, github-bot, `join_subline, MichaelC,
18:05:38 <Zakim> ... gregwhitworth, bigbluehat, agendabot, jcraig, joanie, spectranaut, timeless, ZoeBijl, slightlyoff, dcaro, JonathanNeal, Josh_Soref, trackbot
18:05:54 <MarkMcCarthy> present+ dakahn
18:05:56 <MarkMcCarthy> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:05:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy
18:16:41 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
19:58:54 <myasonik> myasonik has left #aria