IRC log of aria-dive on 2023-08-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:03:27 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #aria-dive
- 16:03:32 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-aria-dive-irc
- 16:03:32 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 16:03:33 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
- 16:03:36 [Adam_Page]
- scribe: Adam_Page
- 16:05:58 [spectranaut_]
- meeting: ARIA deep dive - further use cases for aria-modal
- 16:08:01 [jamesn]
- meeting: ARIA deep dive - Further use cases for aria-modal
- 16:08:52 [Jem]
- Jem has joined #aria-dive
- 16:09:12 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: today’s convo is scoped to https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1950
- 16:09:25 [Adam_Page]
- ... this is also related to an `aria-hidden` issue I filed
- 16:09:38 [Matt_King]
- Matt_King has joined #aria-dive
- 16:10:00 [Jem]
- present+ JaeunJemmaKu
- 16:10:03 [Adam_Page]
- ... aria-modal is currently mostly used just for dialogs, alert dialogs, etc.
- 16:10:31 [Adam_Page]
- ... with values of true and false, where even if it’s false, there can still be some light virtual cursor trapping by some AT
- 16:11:08 [Adam_Page]
- ... related to the work we’ve been doing on popovers — for tooltips, notes, dialogs, menus, listboxes — there seems to be some overlap, where aria-modal behavior might make sense
- 16:11:26 [Adam_Page]
- ... in the Open UI WG there’s been a lot of talk about making more robust listboxes
- 16:11:42 [Adam_Page]
- ... where people want to add rich descriptions, as an example
- 16:11:57 [Adam_Page]
- ... people also want to put interactive elements inside, like links and buttons, etc.
- 16:12:45 [Adam_Page]
- ... might it make sense to have some partial trapping to allow for easy navigation to the top and bottom of these elements
- 16:13:06 [Adam_Page]
- ... so that’s the high-level
- 16:13:43 [StefanS]
- StefanS has joined #aria-dive
- 16:13:48 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: I recently wrote about the language we use and should use when talking about modality and related concepts
- 16:13:51 [StefanS]
- q?
- 16:13:57 [Adam_Page]
- present+
- 16:14:04 [StefanS]
- present+
- 16:14:13 [scotto]
- present+
- 16:14:24 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: in particular, I proposed that there are essentially 3 boundary renderings that happen in all screen readers
- 16:14:35 [Adam_Page]
- ... porous, solid, and invisible
- 16:14:51 [Adam_Page]
- ... porous: the way we typically render a region or a list
- 16:15:04 [Adam_Page]
- ... invisible: like a paragraph, we don’t convey the boundary
- 16:15:26 [Adam_Page]
- solid: with dialogs or windows, with a normal reading command, you’ll bump into a boundary
- 16:16:02 [Adam_Page]
- s/solid:/... solid:/
- 16:16:24 [jamesn]
- q?
- 16:17:11 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: I see potential for two versions of modality: things are fully inert and you shouldn’t be able to get to it, and a second version that allows a “door” to get to the rest of the content
- 16:18:02 [Adam_Page]
- Glen_Gordon: there’s the new Microsoft Outlook online which will likely replace Windows Outlook, and we’re trying to simulate the Windows experience of “trapping” people inside a message
- 16:18:28 [Adam_Page]
- ... would be helpful to have a modal “clue” to support this
- 16:18:48 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: Yes, ARIA should say something about boundaries
- 16:19:35 [Adam_Page]
- ... in that case, couldn’t the message be a non-modal dialog, in ARIA terms?
- 16:19:48 [Adam_Page]
- Glen_Gordon: I don’t want the user to be able to wander out
- 16:20:19 [spectranaut_]
- q+ roberto
- 16:22:04 [scotto]
- q+
- 16:22:44 [StefanS]
- q+
- 16:22:51 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: “solid” can be both modal and non-modal — there’s a “wall” in both cases, but in the non-modal case you can jump over the wall and get to content outside
- 16:23:00 [jamesn]
- q+ Brett
- 16:23:44 [Adam_Page]
- Roberto_Perez: there are some of these boundaries and modalities which are determined by the AT
- 16:23:44 [Adam_Page]
- ... depending on heurisitics
- 16:23:46 [jamesn]
- ack rob
- 16:24:08 [Adam_Page]
- ... NVDA will trap the virtual cursor inside a dialog, whether it’s modal or non-modal, for example
- 16:24:12 [Adam_Page]
- ... the problem where I’m concerned is authors
- 16:24:56 [jamesn]
- qv?
- 16:24:58 [Adam_Page]
- ... authors might misuse dialogs or explicitly hide content from AT too often / inappropriately
- 16:25:41 [Adam_Page]
- ... ATs and users should have the ultimate choice
- 16:25:49 [jamesn]
- ack scotto
- 16:28:48 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: dropdowns are an example of light modality — the user is lightly trapped inside its popover list, but they can still tab out of it
- 16:28:49 [jamesn]
- ack Brett
- 16:29:21 [Adam_Page]
- Brett: what concerns me about labeling too many things as “dialog” is setting user expectations
- 16:29:27 [Adam_Page]
- ... to hear it too often will be confusing
- 16:29:44 [Adam_Page]
- ... I do like the idea of being able to extend modality to multiple things, but they shouldn’t all be called “dialog”
- 16:29:46 [jamesn]
- ack StefanS
- 16:29:52 [jamesn]
- qv?
- 16:30:39 [jamesn]
- q+
- 16:30:55 [scotto]
- disagree with a new role. because that would just swap out using "dialog" everywhere inplace of whatever this new role would be.
- 16:30:59 [Matt_King]
- q?
- 16:31:04 [Matt_King]
- q+
- 16:31:18 [aaronlev]
- aaronlev has joined #aria-dive
- 16:31:25 [aaronlev]
- q+
- 16:31:25 [jamesn]
- ack me
- 16:32:29 [jamesn]
- ack Matt_King
- 16:33:06 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: with aria-modal, we could have values of true, false, and mixed
- 16:33:22 [scotto]
- aria-modal=porous ;)
- 16:33:26 [Adam_Page]
- ... where “mixed” could mean this container has a solid boundary that you can jump over
- 16:33:55 [scotto]
- q+
- 16:34:18 [jamesn]
- ack aa
- 16:34:57 [Adam_Page]
- aaronlev: I surveyed a dozen users, and one thing that users complained about most was getting lost — that web apps don’t act like native apps in that way
- 16:35:34 [Adam_Page]
- ... maybe we should consider other names and get away from aria-modal: something like aria-boundary, aria-island
- 16:35:51 [Adam_Page]
- ... sometimes you just want to decorate a container to say that the user should be kept inside
- 16:36:42 [jamesn]
- ack scotto
- 16:36:42 [Matt_King]
- q+
- 16:36:48 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: agree with all of that
- 16:37:23 [Adam_Page]
- ... I do like the idea of moving away from aria-modal, maybe creating a synonym attribute since it does have some overlap, but it could be a better name to indicate that it’s not just for modals
- 16:37:38 [jamesn]
- q+ to ask if we have ever had a synonym attribute before
- 16:38:02 [Adam_Page]
- ... re: concerns about misuse, and this is more related to the aria-hidden topic, a lot of the a11y APIs with modals is that the tree isn’t pruned
- 16:38:12 [Adam_Page]
- ... in Webkit, it _is_ pruned
- 16:38:24 [Adam_Page]
- ... but in Windows, it is marked as hidden, but it still exists in the a11y tree
- 16:38:38 [Adam_Page]
- ... which allows for an escape hatch in cases of author misuse
- 16:38:57 [jamesn]
- q+ to ask how dialog works on macOS vs Windows
- 16:39:06 [jamesn]
- ack Matt_King
- 16:39:17 [jamesn]
- qv?
- 16:40:41 [Adam_Page]
- q+
- 16:40:41 [jamesn]
- ack me
- 16:40:44 [Zakim]
- jamesn, you wanted to ask if we have ever had a synonym attribute before and to ask how dialog works on macOS vs Windows
- 16:40:49 [scotto]
- implicit boundaries is what i was just thinking. defining those and using 'implicit' as a token / default value
- 16:44:46 [jamesn]
- q?
- 16:48:00 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: in ARIA, we could just say that the “dialog” role always means it’s modal
- 16:48:02 [scotto]
- q+
- 16:48:17 [Adam_Page]
- ... and then add another role, like “panel” or “window”
- 16:49:33 [jamesn]
- ack Adam_Page
- 16:49:42 [jamesn]
- q+ roberto
- 16:50:25 [jamesn]
- ack scotto
- 16:51:06 [Matt_King]
- q+
- 16:51:16 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: I’m hesitant to adding a new role
- 16:51:32 [jamesn]
- q- rob
- 16:51:40 [jamesn]
- ack Matt_King
- 16:51:57 [jamesn]
- q+ to ask what are the next steps
- 16:53:42 [jamesn]
- ack me
- 16:53:42 [Zakim]
- jamesn, you wanted to ask what are the next steps
- 16:54:15 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: I think the main problem can be solved with a new attribute like aria-mixed, but it could still be useful to have an HTML element or role that is implicitly aria-modal=false
- 16:54:41 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: I could work with Matt_King on something like aria-modal=mixed
- 16:55:03 [Adam_Page]
- ... maybe some elements could have aria-modal=mixed as implicit
- 16:55:27 [Adam_Page]
- aaronlev: we’re gonna need clearer language than “modal”, especially for ESL authors
- 16:56:12 [Adam_Page]
- Matt_King: I’d like to explore whether it’s even sensible to permit the concept of a non-modal “dialog”
- 16:57:20 [Adam_Page]
- jamesn: let’s not worry about naming for now, but make progress on the underlying concepts
- 16:57:37 [Adam_Page]
- scotto: I can take a crack at extending `aria-modal`, acknowledging that we might change the name later to make it more understandable
- 16:57:41 [spectranaut_]
- matt's essay on modal dialogs: https://gist.github.com/mcking65/11882ebbe2889964c62ab5a16ab528c3
- 16:58:36 [Adam_Page]
- zakim, end meeting
- 16:58:36 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been JaeunJemmaKu, Adam_Page, StefanS, scotto
- 16:58:38 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 16:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-aria-dive-minutes.html Zakim
- 16:58:46 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, Adam_Page; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 16:58:50 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #aria-dive
- 17:02:18 [melsumner]
- melsumner has joined #aria-dive
- 18:02:02 [bkardell_]
- bkardell_ has joined #aria-dive