IRC log of aria on 2022-11-17
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 17:39:51 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #aria
- 17:39:51 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/17-aria-irc
- 17:39:53 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 17:39:54 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
- 17:40:00 [jamesn]
- meeting: ARIA WG
- 17:40:08 [jamesn]
- chair: JamesNurthen
- 17:40:16 [jamesn]
- regrets+ ValerieYoung
- 17:40:23 [jamesn]
- agendabot, find agenda
- 17:40:23 [agendabot]
- jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
- 17:40:24 [agendabot]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/2b92a902-1365-4ea0-8c68-9f8ae2106fe3/20221117T130000
- 17:40:24 [agendabot]
- clear agenda
- 17:40:24 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3UGgP31
- 17:40:24 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3OaLCT7
- 17:40:26 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates
- 17:40:29 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69 - can this be merged? It will unblock a lot.
- 17:40:32 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> AccName Role Traversal Proposal https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1821
- 17:40:35 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> ARIAMixin and ElementInternals https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1843 - Feedback requested by Anne
- 17:40:38 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> Define how custom elements are exposed to AT https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/175
- 17:40:41 [agendabot]
- agenda+ -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+
- 18:00:14 [Adam_Page]
- Adam_Page has joined #aria
- 18:01:29 [pkra]
- pkra has joined #aria
- 18:02:31 [scotto]
- scotto has joined #aria
- 18:03:56 [Adam_Page]
- present+
- 18:04:04 [scotto]
- present+
- 18:04:18 [pkra]
- present+
- 18:04:45 [scotto]
- mark is a wonderful person and i hope good things happen to him
- 18:04:47 [MarkMcCarthy]
- MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria
- 18:04:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scribe+
- 18:05:10 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:05:10 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3UGgP31 -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:05:49 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: no new issues today? wow
- 18:05:57 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: lets peek in one more place
- 18:06:07 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: okay, cool!
- 18:06:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:06:11 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3OaLCT7 -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:06:28 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: no new PRs? wow! holidays...
- 18:06:40 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: maybe ARIA just works now
- 18:06:42 [MarkMcCarthy]
- [laughter]
- 18:06:48 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, new item
- 18:06:48 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'new item', MarkMcCarthy
- 18:06:53 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:06:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 was just opened, MarkMcCarthy
- 18:07:01 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, close this item
- 18:07:01 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 18:07:02 [Zakim]
- I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 18:07:02 [Zakim]
- 3. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot]
- 18:07:04 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 18:07:04 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:07:18 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: anyone want to plan a deep dive? we have one on Dec 8
- 18:07:37 [BGaraventa]
- BGaraventa has joined #aria
- 18:07:46 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: aria-flowto is scheduled for Dec 8. only slots we have are Dec 1 and 15
- 18:07:52 [BGaraventa]
- present+ bgaraventa
- 18:08:02 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: hearing none, moving on
- 18:08:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:08:05 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- -> Support aria-description https://github.com/w3c/accname/pull/69 - can this be merged? It will unblock a lot. -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:08:39 [MarkMcCarthy]
- s/moving on/moving on. I cancelled lots of upcoming meetings, so make sure to check your calendars. Nothing between Dec 15 and Jan 5
- 18:09:01 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: where are we on this one? waiting on the accname editors?
- 18:09:16 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: it's fine with me, i just need to mark it as approved
- 18:09:20 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: i fixed the merge conflict
- 18:09:34 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: hoping for Melanie to check it out, too
- 18:10:10 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: i'm okay with it, but i need reviewers on #444
- 18:10:43 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: jcraig, aaron, and BGaraventa have been assigned
- 18:11:12 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: it's essentially all the same stuff, but in a different spec
- 18:11:19 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i'll take a look this afternoon
- 18:11:41 [MarkMcCarthy]
- Aaron: I can check it out too
- 18:11:49 [aaronlev]
- aaronlev has joined #aria
- 18:11:58 [jaunita_george]
- jaunita_george has joined #aria
- 18:12:03 [jaunita_george]
- Present+
- 18:12:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: once that's done, all the other PRs will have to be rebased on that, since it changes accname a lot
- 18:13:39 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:13:39 [Zakim]
- agendum 5 -- -> AccName Role Traversal Proposal https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1821 -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:14:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: james teh and BGaraventa have been having some discussions. where are we BGaraventa?
- 18:15:09 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: james teh would like the 'always' and 'never' speced out, and elements that receive focus. he seems against adding that in, based on the github comments. what does the group think?
- 18:15:42 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: i'll give it a read through
- 18:16:16 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: his example of a listbox inside a link... seems like a legitimately weird use case.
- 18:16:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: not sure that's a good example
- 18:16:45 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: essentially what he's saying is correct - it never makes sense to traverse inside certain roles (like a <select>)
- 18:16:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: when select-size=1, we take the value of the object to put it in the name
- 18:17:09 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: but you wouldn't traverse into its children, right?
- 18:17:28 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: we do have examples like that, or like a listbox in a label
- 18:17:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: the precedent should be if the thing has a value
- 18:18:15 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: could result in getting something without an accessible name, if there's no value though, right?
- 18:18:32 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: if that's the only thing you had, sure
- 18:19:03 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: if the aim of this is to make sure everything gets an accname, we'd want to avoid something like that. but that's not the goal here right?
- 18:19:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: yeah
- 18:19:15 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: i wouldn't want to complicate the algorithm any more than necessary
- 18:19:46 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: an option is that if a focusable element doesn't have a name, then it's an author error
- 18:19:57 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: yes AND we can state browsers MAY correct that if they want to
- 18:20:07 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: what do you think scotto ?
- 18:20:28 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: i'd rather we go with the least complicated option, and we could take another look at what needs to be done
- 18:21:02 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: we should look into what common situations come up where an accessible name should be returned and isn't
- 18:21:20 [chlane]
- chlane has joined #aria
- 18:21:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: having it completely reliant on focusability - what does that do with virtual cursors and other forms of non-focusing navigation?
- 18:22:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: i'd rathre keep it simple for now and check into the rest later
- 18:22:05 [chlane]
- present+
- 18:22:34 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: i'd like to suggest that naming is never dependent on focus, that seems like an inconsistency that could only have negative impact for screen reader users
- 18:23:07 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: the one counterpoint I have is where generics get named by contents, if they have tabindex=-1, resulting in the entirey of an ENTIRE div's contents being the name for a container
- 18:23:27 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: other than that, i totally agree with you Matt
- 18:23:55 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: that's a situation where i would argue that, if it does get focused, it's a generic, so it shouldn't be named by content ANYWAY
- 18:23:55 [jamesn]
- q+
- 18:24:33 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: if we give the browser some wiggle room to do some kind of processing to decide if SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, then that can exist in the spec too
- 18:25:04 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: want to make sure that visually hidden things don't get broken by things like that too, in case they have tabindex=-1 (not that they always have that)
- 18:25:28 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: if it's offscreen for the purpose of helping screenreaders, they should be giving it an accname
- 18:25:41 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: yes they SHOULD be, but historically hasn't always been the case
- 18:25:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: can we agree that if tabindex shouldn't effect this?
- 18:26:14 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: if something has tabindex=0 though, that might be a case where we want to
- 18:26:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: what i have the biggest problem with is something GAINING an accname ONLY when it's focused. that mismatches the reading and focus experiences
- 18:27:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: if it COULD be tabbed to (not tabindex=-1), we assign names proactively
- 18:27:32 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: so when doing that, if you inspect those elements in the dev tools, what does it say about the accname calculation?
- 18:27:46 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: i don't think we have something saying it's been repaired, probably just says "named from contents"
- 18:28:13 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: that's part of our concern - language around that needs to be fairly consistent in Firefox and Chrome
- 18:28:41 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: even a junior engineer might find problems otherwise ("Oh, Chrome is doing a repair - what's firefox doing?")
- 18:28:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: a good feature add might be to say where the name is from, and something like "repaired" included
- 18:29:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: would you be happy if the accname doesn't include that? or should it be?
- 18:29:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: I don't have a specific opinion
- 18:29:33 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: i do see the benefit of cross browser consistency
- 18:29:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: could you point to the code for the repair, so those interested could see what it's doing?
- 18:29:57 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: i'll post a link
- 18:30:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: instead of writing something normative, could just be a note that "some browsers may provide error correction" or similar
- 18:30:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: we COULD detail how browsers should do that
- 18:31:01 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: i'd like to see dev tools getting better, at least where the browser is actively correcting author errors
- 18:31:06 [aaronlev]
- In Chrome, the code that decides whether we should traverse an object for it's accessible name computation is called AXObject::SupportsNameFromContents() at https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/modules/accessibility/ax_object.cc;l=6306
- 18:31:14 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: it would have make it clear that there's a mistake
- 18:31:25 [MarkMcCarthy]
- s/would have make/would make
- 18:31:31 [aaronlev]
- It takes a boolean argument, |recursive|, which is true when it's in the middle of computing the name of an ancestor
- 18:31:48 [aaronlev]
- there are lots of comments in there -- please let me know if there are areas you see that need clarification
- 18:32:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: this sounds similar to what James Teh wants to do for a title on an image - the author needs to be aware they did something wrong. if dev tools can expose that, great, rather than "I guess it works fine, great, ship it"
- 18:32:20 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: could we make this an issue so we could pass it along to those that can do it?
- 18:32:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: no urgency, but it'd be helpful to have
- 18:32:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: where could I file it?
- 18:33:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: cr-bug, cr-featurerequest? against Chrome
- 18:33:31 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: could this be a deep dive topic? With James Teh? He works with Firefox so it'd be good to have Google and Mozilla convos
- 18:33:37 [MarkMcCarthy]
- q?
- 18:33:49 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: before the holidays?
- 18:33:52 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: no [laughter]
- 18:33:56 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: january would be great
- 18:34:04 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: i'll find some folks to join us, too
- 18:34:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: how should we get James to reply/come?
- 18:34:27 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: pretty responsive via github
- 18:34:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: and email
- 18:34:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: can we summarize this proposal?
- 18:35:04 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: we would allow browsers to repair things as they like, but WHEN repaired, we want them to flag it as such, so authors don't have a false sense of correctness
- 18:35:31 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: to make it clear in dev tools that it works because it was repaired, not because it was correct. not visible to the average user
- 18:35:47 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: support for adding a note to accname spec, that this repair might happen?
- 18:35:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: that seems a natural place to put it
- 18:36:08 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: might even be a MAY, not a note
- 18:36:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: another good thing might be to say browsers need to document what repairs were done so we can compare results
- 18:36:45 [MarkMcCarthy]
- s/results/results as testers
- 18:36:50 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: browsers must?
- 18:37:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: it'd be hard to get through CR without checking on that
- 18:37:31 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: browsers SHOULD, might work
- 18:37:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i like SHOULD over MAY
- 18:38:06 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: in some cases, it might be do nothing and don't repair, with good cause
- 18:38:34 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: documenting what repairs are done sounds good. a requirement to reveal a repair could be a SHOULD
- 18:38:41 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: maybe a MUST if we can get the browsers to agree
- 18:38:55 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: that might be a separate issue then
- 18:39:02 [MarkMcCarthy]
- q?
- 18:39:09 [jamesn]
- q-
- 18:39:20 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i'd need help with the actual wording of that from the implementers
- 18:39:36 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: but i'll make a comment of all this to james teh, and let jcraig know about this
- 18:40:00 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: two actions - 1) browsers SHOULD repair ... 2) an issue about adding "browsers MUST document repairs" or similar
- 18:40:12 [MarkMcCarthy]
- scotto: is that to be done here or in ARIA proper?
- 18:40:19 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: we'll figure that out later
- 18:40:36 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: why would we change browsers MAY repair to browsers SHOULD repair? not sure we entirely want them to
- 18:41:11 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: when authors do something incorrect, having inconsistency across browsers can be advantageous to give authors incentive to correct things
- 18:41:27 [jamesn]
- we have may, should and must in the correcting author errors section
- 18:41:28 [jamesn]
- https://w3c.github.io/aria/#document-handling_author-errors_states-properties
- 18:41:33 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: assuming peopel test a11y cross browser
- 18:41:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- s/peopel/people
- 18:41:59 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: assuming that people don't just use what they're comfortable with, rather than checking everywhere
- 18:42:09 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: i'm fine with MAY or SHOULD
- 18:42:30 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: in that section about repairs, Matt, we have MAYs, SHOULDs, and MUST NOTs
- 18:42:48 [MarkMcCarthy]
- mck: sounds like we need a MUST [laughs] "MUST reveal repairs"
- 18:43:26 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: there's the other side of the spec change, always traverse or never traverse, what do people think?
- 18:43:45 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: if we can infer it without having something split it, great. if it's not there, we can add it.
- 18:44:13 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: james teh is in agreement to adding traversal property to spec
- 18:44:41 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: what's NOT in agreement is what roles should ALWAYS be traversed, and getting that agreement might be difficult
- 18:45:26 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i'm not exactly sure what everyone wants, we've seen what i suggest, and if people could change that/modify to what they think, so we can get a proposal together, that'd be helpful
- 18:45:55 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: has anyone gone through what you wrote BGaraventa to see if that's what Mozilla or Google do?
- 18:46:03 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i haven't done the backend part yet
- 18:46:26 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i'll ask james teh, he's got ideas of what should and shouldn't be included
- 18:46:46 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: jamie has strong opinions about it
- 18:47:06 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: in the issue, theres a list of what Chromium and Gecko do for their mappings
- 18:47:35 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: i pasted the link about Chrome's computation above. it's mainly a switch statement, should be pretty readable
- 18:47:36 [Matt_King]
- Matt_King has joined #aria
- 18:47:46 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: this is where i got the information for the spreadsheet
- 18:48:00 [Matt_King]
- present+
- 18:48:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: there's some rules for the body element that are kind of unique, is something tabbable just because scrollable, some pragmatic type of rules
- 18:48:39 [jamesn]
- agenda?
- 18:48:47 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: if something has lots of descendents, it's expensive to compute all of that, bad for performance
- 18:49:02 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: there's a max number of nodes with a named from contents calculation
- 18:49:15 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: there should be a character limit in that case, maybe
- 18:49:37 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: doing it by number of nodes is cheapr
- 18:49:43 [MarkMcCarthy]
- s/cheapr/cheaper
- 18:50:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: lets table this conversation about repair. it'd be nice to get info from devs about pain points re: browser differences and AT differences, what's making ARIA devs lives difficult, etc. Look at this as PMs rather than cleanup
- 18:50:32 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: +1
- 18:51:00 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: yes, tabling for later sounds good
- 18:51:15 [MarkMcCarthy]
- BGaraventa: i'll ask james teh if he can modify that list with his suggestions
- 18:51:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: sounds like a way forward
- 18:51:34 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:51:34 [Zakim]
- agendum 6 -- -> ARIAMixin and ElementInternals https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1843 - Feedback requested by Anne -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:52:09 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: Anne is asking for feedback on his plan - i'm having trouble understanding it
- 18:52:23 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: is everyone good with the plan, or not understanding it?
- 18:52:37 [MarkMcCarthy]
- aaron: let's find someone who makes custom elements and makes them accessible for their opinion
- 18:52:54 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: i can find some salesforce people, maybe from the AOM meeting
- 18:53:37 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, next item
- 18:53:37 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 -- -> Define how custom elements are exposed to AT https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/175 -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 18:54:05 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: an associated issue, can we talk about this with AOM too?
- 18:54:07 [MarkMcCarthy]
- cyns: yes
- 18:54:19 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, close this item
- 18:54:19 [Zakim]
- agendum 7 closed
- 18:54:20 [Zakim]
- I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
- 18:54:20 [Zakim]
- 8. -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+ [from agendabot]
- 18:54:22 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, take up item 8
- 18:54:22 [Zakim]
- agendum 8 -- -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+ -- taken up [from
- 18:54:25 [Zakim]
- ... agendabot]
- 18:54:35 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: anyone have updates on these? if not, this is your reminder to work on them
- 18:54:52 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: hearing none, have a great day everyone!
- 18:54:59 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria
- 18:55:10 [MarkMcCarthy]
- jamesn: no meeting next week - enjoy your holiday! next meeting is Dec 1
- 18:55:21 [MarkMcCarthy]
- zakim, who is here?
- 18:55:21 [Zakim]
- Present: Adam_Page, scotto, pkra, bgaraventa, jaunita_george, chlane, Matt_King
- 18:55:23 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see zcorpan, Matt_King, chlane, jaunita_george, aaronlev, BGaraventa, MarkMcCarthy, scotto, pkra, Adam_Page, RRSAgent, Zakim, jamesn, Mike5Matrix, leobalter, Jamie,
- 18:55:23 [Zakim]
- ... jcraig, joanie, cabanier, github-bot, MichaelC, daniel-montalvo, ada, JonathanNeal, chrishtr, ZoeBijl, timeless, Josh_Soref, bigbluehat, slightlyoff, gregwhitworth, trackbot,
- 18:55:23 [Zakim]
- ... agendabot
- 18:55:29 [MarkMcCarthy]
- present+ cyns
- 18:55:38 [MarkMcCarthy]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 18:55:38 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/17-aria-minutes.html MarkMcCarthy
- 19:38:32 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria
- 19:56:21 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria
- 20:08:26 [s3ththompson]
- s3ththompson has joined #aria
- 20:12:17 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria
- 20:24:11 [chlane]
- quit
- 22:03:37 [zcorpan]
- zcorpan has joined #aria