23:06:44 RRSAgent has joined #aria-dive 23:06:44 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/03-aria-dive-irc 23:06:47 RRSAgent, make logs Public 23:06:47 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 23:06:52 Adam_Page has joined #aria-dive 23:07:00 present+ 23:07:50 BGaraventa: Issue for some years where browsers have chosen on their own which roles etc need to be traversed 23:08:27 present+ 23:08:55 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1821 23:09:15 BGaraventa: first determine which roles should/should not be traversed 23:11:31 scottono: example https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1821#issuecomment-1267695450 23:11:59 q+ to ask is this not error correction at this point? 23:13:25 ack me 23:13:25 jamesn, you wanted to ask is this not error correction at this point? 23:13:49 BGaraventa: some browsers could weigh on the side of including everything 23:14:00 q+ 23:14:13 q+ to ask if we think authors should be able to do this 23:14:39 ack jcraig 23:15:10 q+ 23:15:11 jcraig: +1 in support of jamesn language - there are opportunities for authors to get that interop to fix the issues 23:15:40 q- 23:15:43 jcraig: allowing the engines to account for it in a flexible way allows engines to account for something which are both performant and innvative 23:15:52 ack me 23:15:52 jamesn, you wanted to ask if we think authors should be able to do this 23:16:08 q+ 23:16:55 q+ to say re: "allowed" MAY or SHOULD? 23:17:08 BGaraventa: in principle I agree but the person who suffers is the AT user 23:18:17 ack scottono 23:18:35 scottono: I agree that in principle this should not be allowed 23:18:55 scottono: but in HTML it is allowed and this is a real thing that is happening 23:19:00 q+ 23:19:25 scottono: the rules for how name should be calculated are far more recent 23:19:36 qq+ 23:20:37 ack me 23:20:37 jamesn, you wanted to react to scottono 23:20:54 jamesn: why can't we do that 23:22:33 q+ 23:22:46 ack Jamie 23:23:13 q+ to address the innerText comment (speccing that would not allow a better sub-set of innerText) 23:23:23 Jamie: overriding of content only happens for cases links where they do allow name from content but name from author is also allowed 23:23:54 Jamie: a bunch of conversations - a bigger conflation - I don't think focusability matters much if we traverse into something 23:24:09 Jamie: when the root node allows name from content 23:24:41 jcraig: group doesn't allow Name from content - but when it is a child it will get traversed 23:25:05 Jamie: this focusability should get name from content but only when focusable 23:25:24 s/jcraig: group/Jamie: group/ 23:25:53 Jamie: this would only apply for things that allow name from content 23:26:18 Jamie: for roles that allow name from content there is a list of things which allow traversal 23:26:25 ack me 23:26:25 jcraig, you wanted to say re: "allowed" MAY or SHOULD? and to and to address the innerText comment (speccing that would not allow a better sub-set of innerText) 23:26:35 q- 23:27:07 jcraig: perhaps should would be better 23:27:54 jcraig: BGaraventa sounded like you wanted to put InnerText in the spec - would be good to start with.... but wouldn't allow useragents to do a better job 23:28:22 jcraig: there could be better ways including using text size etc, to allow user agents to do a better job 23:28:28 q+ 23:29:08 BGaraventa: the problem is when you omit info you are determining that someone may not need to know what X is - maybe the disclaimer is important and it is smaller 23:29:38 jcraig: agree would be a problem. with VO you can interact - if others are suppressing that then could be a problem 23:29:49 ack Jamie 23:30:17 Jamie: have no issue with UA using ML etc. to work something out - need to mark it such that it is a guess 23:30:21 q+ 23:30:46 Jamie: think we had this conversation at TPAC and think V. important that the user knows it is a guess 23:30:53 +1 to Jamie 23:31:31 +1 23:31:44 q? 23:32:03 ack jcraig 23:32:44 VO has precedent for speaking "possibly " or "probably " 23:33:07 BGaraventa: I like Jamie idea about traversing - but not specced out clearly 23:33:25 Jamie: fine with that, but the spec should make it clear that the guess should not be the same API property as the label 23:34:03 q+ 23:36:57 q- 23:37:26 q+ to throw a in
in