17:44:47 RRSAgent has joined #aria 17:44:51 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-aria-irc 17:44:51 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:44:52 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn 17:44:55 meeting: ARIA WGF 17:44:55 meeting: ARIA WG 17:45:02 agendabot, find agenda 17:45:02 jamesn, OK. This may take a minute... 17:45:03 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/2b92a902-1365-4ea0-8c68-9f8ae2106fe3/20230126T130000 17:45:03 clear agenda 17:45:03 agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3XR2Fxi 17:45:03 agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3XYEeOJ 17:45:05 agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates 17:45:08 agenda+ F2F planning: Seattle or SF, Week of 17 April, 24 April, or May 1 17:45:11 agenda+ -> Add explanations for how textboxes and searchboxes obtain their values https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1827 17:45:14 agenda+ -> Draft: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805 17:45:17 agenda+ -> 1.3 blocking issues https://bit.ly/3JaWgcc 17:45:25 regrets+ PeterKrautzberger 17:45:28 regrets+ ScottOHara 17:45:36 present+ 17:48:36 chlane has joined #aria 17:57:49 spectranaut_ has joined #aria 17:59:25 agenda? 17:59:52 StefanS has joined #aria 18:00:29 Adam_Page has joined #aria 18:02:26 chair: spectranaut_ 18:02:32 present+ 18:02:41 scribe: Adam_Page 18:02:48 zakim, next item 18:02:48 agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3XR2Fxi -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:02:54 present+ 18:03:48 jaunitageorge1 has joined #ARIA 18:03:48 present+ 18:03:48 sarah_higley has joined #aria 18:03:48 Anyone going to CSUN? 18:04:07 present+ 18:05:11 spectranaut_: #457 18:05:27 ... Scott will get to this one later 18:05:35 spectranaut_: #182 18:05:49 ... follow-up issue for a PR craig opened 18:05:50 CurtBellew has joined #aria 18:05:56 jamesn: need to merge #1860 first 18:06:06 present+ 18:06:31 spectranaut_: #1861 18:06:48 ... potential deep dive topic 18:07:15 ... we’ll agenda for next week 18:07:34 spectranaut_: #455 18:08:07 jcraig: should we call this a reserved role? 18:08:20 jraig: if anyone else has suggestions, should we reserve like we do the video element, or is there a better element in existing ARIA? 18:08:26 sarah_higley: group? 18:08:37 jamesn: it’s an additional role, right? 18:09:09 spectranaut_: we’ll agenda this 18:09:18 zakim, next item 18:09:18 agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/3XYEeOJ -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:09:32 spectranaut_: #183 18:09:42 sarah_higley: this is what we’ve talked about before with step 2c 18:10:14 ... I rearranged the words and tested in all browsers 18:10:27 spectranaut_: we need reviewers 18:11:38 spectranaut_: #1862 18:11:48 sarah_higley: we might want to agenda this 18:11:59 ... it’s been a while since we’ve discussed 18:11:59 "Busy 18:11:59 When others mention you, assign you, or request your review, GitHub will let them know that you have limited availability." 18:12:23 ... we don’t have standard deprecation text 18:12:48 ... if we wanted to add a process for deprecating things, beyond what we have 18:12:57 spectranaut_: would you create an issue for deprecation process? 18:13:33 jamesn: don’t necessarily need to go through formal deprecation steps for every change 18:13:54 jamesn: with specs being evergreen nowadays, what does it mean? 18:14:03 jamesn: need clarity from management 18:14:42 spectranaut_: it sounds like we should have some consistency in the way we deprecate things 18:14:48 jcraig: it complicates the way things are validated 18:15:00 jcraig: a validator should be able to say it’s been deprecated vs. invalid 18:15:24 jamesn: where the current usage is causing _harm_, then deprecation is perhaps not enough 18:15:37 sarah_higley: it makes it worse here because it’s the wrong pattern 18:16:15 spectranaut_: should we have a follow-up about deprecation process? 18:16:22 spectranaut_: #1860 18:16:41 jcraig: John Gunderson started a few years ago and I picked it up 18:16:48 jcraig: there were some merge conflicts 18:16:52 jcraig: I added some reviewers 18:17:06 jcraig: I opened this as a new PR and closed the old one 18:17:27 spectranaut_: #456 18:17:40 .. this was a broken reference to HTML 18:17:58 ... asked for Scott’s review. It changes at least Chrome‘s implementation 18:18:08 ... not sure what Webkit does — could you take a look, jcraig? 18:18:29 ... whether a header and footer should be considered landmark if they’re contained within a section context 18:18:41 spectranaut_: #1859 18:18:56 ... pkra already looked at this 18:19:04 ... anyone want to review? 18:19:13 sarah_higley: I think this can just be merged 18:19:18 jcraig: I agree 18:19:28 spectranaut_: great, please approve the PR 18:19:31 zakim, next item 18:19:31 agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:19:47 MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria 18:19:50 present+ 18:19:59 spectranaut_: do we have any to plan? other than potential process ones 18:20:37 jcraig: if we do a process one, then the expectations for issue and PR templates could be part of that 18:20:56 spectranaut_: let’s talk about it next meeting, and then plan a deep dive if necessary 18:20:59 zakim, next item 18:20:59 agendum 4 -- F2F planning: Seattle or SF, Week of 17 April, 24 April, or May 1 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:21:57 spectranaut_: we’re going to send out a poll, but wanted some initial thoughts 18:22:15 ... Seattle and San Francisco had the same level of preference 18:22:46 ... weeks of April 17, April 24, or May 1 are the three options 18:24:52 ... group preference is for April over May 18:25:02 zakim, next item 18:25:02 agendum 5 -- -> Add explanations for how textboxes and searchboxes obtain their values https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1827 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:25:21 https://w3c.github.io/aria/#combobox 18:25:24 Otherwise, the value of the combobox is represented by its descendant elements and can be determined using the same method used to compute the name of a button from its descendant content. 18:25:29 spectranaut_: this is an old PR from chlane, wasn’t sure how to resolve 18:25:43 ... this PR copies the text from combobox into textbox and search box 18:25:58 q+ 18:26:15 chlane: there are comments that need discussion 18:26:29 q? 18:26:42 chlane: observed that “button” is being used confusingly in the spec language 18:27:10 chlane: the dependency here is how buttons get their name 18:27:19 jamesn: it’s specifically calling out an ARIA button, right? 18:27:39 spectranaut_: value is what we’re trying to define here 18:27:53 cyns: would it be better to just take out the button, if it’s only meant to serve as an example? 18:28:00 sarah_higley: should this actually be in accname? 18:28:11 q+ 18:28:20 ack sarah_higley 18:28:23 ... because there’s a step with a list of steps for how to calculate value 18:28:28 ... and it needs improvement 18:28:41 ... we should document the steps more clearly there 18:28:54 jcraig: so that’s remove this sentence from this PR, and then file a new issue for accname? 18:29:09 sarah_higley: yeah, and then this point in the ARIA spec would reference that 18:29:12 ack me 18:29:53 jcraig: for this PR, there’s already some text that cross-references to accname, so you could imitate that 18:29:59 q+ 18:30:00 jcraig: but I agree, maybe value needs to be part of it 18:30:07 ack chlane 18:30:18 jcraig: so you could just take out the whole button sentence 18:30:35 spectranaut_: under all three: combobox, textbox, searchbox, this PR should be removing mention of the value calculation and referencing accname instead 18:30:42 chlane: okay, I’ll open a new accname issue for that 18:30:49 ... to review accname calculation 18:31:48 jamesn: so we’ll probably just remove all those bullets from 2c and then rewrite it so it makes sense? 18:31:57 sarah_higley : yes, that’s what I had in mind? 18:32:12 ack me 18:32:28 zakim, next item 18:32:28 agendum 6 -- -> Draft: aria-actions addition to the ARIA spec https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1805 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:32:58 spectranaut_: jcraig put agenda+ on this PR 18:33:07 jcraig: yes, there were a handful of things 18:33:27 jcraig: there were some placeholders in the description that I think are all filled out now 18:34:09 ... there’s a lot of boilerplate added to specific roles 18:34:25 ... the essential stuff is in the new description area 18:34:44 ... I wanted to ask about the content of these 18:35:31 ... for the AT experience, you land on a thing with actions, and this allows a user to go through from one main thing to another, rather than hitting a bunch of tabstops in between 18:35:44 ... like emails meaning being the main thing, with related actions like archive, delete, etc. 18:36:55 ... I’m being specific about this because I want to make sure there’s no mix-up for authors or implementors 18:37:45 ... actions could be more than just simple buttons operations, like a checkbox that has a label and a checked/unchecked state 18:38:18 sarah_higley: in the first deep dive, we talked about cases where there could be nested dropdowns or inputs 18:38:31 ... where the meaning could be altered by the user changing text 18:38:55 ... like a “Snooze for [30 minutes]” feature for a meeting reminder 18:39:15 jamesn: the actions must be _visible_, right? 18:39:27 jcraig: that’s the next requirement 18:39:37 jamesn: if they’re visible, then there shouldn’t be a privacy issue 18:40:57 jamesn: any action that you can activate/toggle with a single click should be allowed 18:41:19 sarah_higley: part of this is that actions are allowed as child roles of the parent, no matter what role they are 18:41:32 ... so this originally came up as a case where people nest interactive items *within* an interactive item 18:41:52 ... which normally wouldn’t be allowed, but aria-actions could enable it, if we wanted to pursue it 18:41:59 ... but I’m okay with narrowing the scope here 18:44:54 jcraig: this is good discussion, I’ll try to capture this in the PR thread 18:45:18 sarah_higley: text inputs relating to the action are one example, a spinbutton number input could be another 18:45:51 jcraig: still need to talk to some more people about the focus & click interactions 18:46:02 sarah_higley: this was the main additional complexity I was thinking about 18:46:15 ... but just trying to anticipate it, not propose we support it necessarily 18:50:53 jcraig: I think these notes in the PR cover everything, so I can yield time for the rest of the meeting 18:50:59 zakim, next item 18:50:59 agendum 7 -- -> 1.3 blocking issues https://bit.ly/3JaWgcc -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:51:13 spectranaut_: since we almost have 1.2 published, we can soon follow with 1.3 18:51:32 jamesn: I need to close the CFC as well, so I’ll send out an email that it passed 18:51:55 zakim, next item 18:51:55 agendum 7 was just opened, Adam_Page 18:52:12 sarah_higley: if anyone wants to review the descendant PR, please do 18:52:27 spectranaut_: in the next 8 minutes, let’s all review PRs 18:52:41 jamesn: please put the link in IRC? 18:52:44 present+ 18:52:47 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1454 18:53:17 zakim, end meeting 18:53:17 As of this point the attendees have been jamesn, Adam_Page, chlane, jaunitageorge, sarah_higley, CurtBellew, MarkMcCarthy, StefanS 18:53:19 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:53:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-aria-minutes.html Zakim 18:53:27 I am happy to have been of service, Adam_Page; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:53:27 Zakim has left #aria