17:54:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
17:54:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/19-aria-apg-irc
17:54:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:54:21 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Matt_King
17:57:17 <Matt_King> MEETING: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
17:57:27 <Matt_King> present+
17:57:33 <Matt_King> rrsagent, make minutes
17:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/19-aria-apg-minutes.html Matt_King
17:58:49 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg
18:00:57 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, make log public
18:01:06 <jugglinmike> Zakim, start the meeting
18:01:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:01:07 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-apg
18:01:07 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
18:01:24 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force Weekly Teleconference
18:01:27 <Jem> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practice
18:01:51 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
18:01:58 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
18:02:00 <Jem> present+
18:02:57 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-apg
18:03:22 <howard-e> present+
18:04:09 <jongund> present+ jongund
18:05:12 <jugglinmike> Topic: reflections on TPAC
18:05:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: APG was discussed in multiple contexts
18:05:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The most substantial discussion was around the Tooltip pattern. It got 90 minutes of discussion in the ARIA WG!
18:06:24 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/TPAC-2023-ARIA-Meetings
18:06:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I need to revisit the minutes to capture the essense of that discussion
18:06:43 <Jem> tooltip: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2002
18:06:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we made some decisions that enable some forward progress on the Tooltip pattern
18:07:26 <jugglinmike> jongund: Why did this pattern get consideration at TPAC?
18:07:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Tooltips are all over the place, APG doesn't have an example, and we have an issue that's been open for 7 years
18:08:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Separately, we talked about bringing new features into ARIA and making sure we have alignment with screen reader developers
18:08:18 <Jem> Tuesday meeting agenda: Relationship with ATs, and update on ARIA-AT results
18:08:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I suggested that for the new features we're working on in 2024, we should include early prototype examples in the APG, and then give the ARIA-AT community group an opportunity to consider how they would write tests
18:09:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That seems to be agreeable to the folks involved in the discussion, though some expressed concerned that it might be too early for that kind of design
18:09:57 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1884
18:10:06 <Jem> 1.4 prioritization
18:10:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: ARIA has four very clear priorities for the 2024 roadmap
18:10:45 <Jem> notification proposal: https://github.com/w3c/aria/discussions/1958
18:10:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: 1. ARIA actions, 2. AT notifications, 3. changes to ARIA Model to support UI popover, and (my favorite) 4. list view
18:11:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm already working on the ARIA pull requests for modal and list view
18:11:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: ARIA actions, as we know, has already made a lot of progress. The main thing is to get someone (hopefully Sarah) to write an example
18:12:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The main implication for APG is that we need a way to write content that is LOUDLY labeled as "experimental". That content is included as a way for the community to iterate
18:12:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if we can prioritize this by the end of this year, though
18:13:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I felt really good about the progress we made on all of these things! APG also received some nice call outs; it seems as though the wider community is recognizing our work.
18:14:31 <jugglinmike> Topic: Status of Site Updates
18:14:31 <Jem> Topic: Status of Site Updates
18:15:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We landed three changes, including the longstanding patch from jongund "Listbox Examples: Update scrolling of listbox item with focus into view when page is magnified"
18:15:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2622
18:16:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Those patches are listed in the agenda for this meeting
18:16:14 <jugglinmike> Topic: PR 2780: Fix for iOS Safari combobox bug
18:16:23 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2780
18:17:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I put in a review checklist, and I'm pretty sure we only need people looking at the visual presentation and the code
18:17:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's not much code, but the code review is important because we want to make sure the approach is appropriate
18:18:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The patch uses absolute numbers, and I wonder if that is the best way
18:18:47 <jugglinmike> jongund: I can do a code review
18:20:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: My second question is about the two examples which are NOT changed by this pull request. Could we have someone look and verify that this problem does not exist in iOS and Safari on those two?
18:21:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The other two examples are "select only" and "date picker". They do not use the CSS which are modified by this patch (they have their own separate CSS)
18:21:28 <jugglinmike> jongund: I can look at those, too
18:21:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks! If those also need changes, I'd like those changes to be included in the scope of this patch
18:22:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Because I don't actually understand what was wrong (or what "auto" does in that patch), I had trouble choosing a good title for this pull request
18:25:18 <jugglinmike> [Jem explains the problem]
18:26:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, thank you. I have the answer that I need for the third question. If jongund and jem submit reviews, then Andrea will have what she needs
18:26:43 <jugglinmike> Topic: PR 2775: Feed example changes
18:27:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Because neither Andrea nor Ariella is here, I think we should skip this today
18:27:22 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2775
18:27:34 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 2798: Question about how typeahead should work in treeviews
18:27:45 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2798
18:28:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The reporter believes that the description of tree view is not specific enough about scrolling in a specific situation
18:29:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: They offer a solution
18:29:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: As far as I can tell from native implementations of tree view, their suggestion would be more of a search than a typeahead.
18:29:58 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/patterns/treeview/examples/treeview-navigation/
18:30:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Scrolling to things in tree view that are inside of a collapsed node seems more like a search behavior to me
18:32:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: in my mind, scrolling into collapsed content would not necessarily be great because the user may have content collapsed on purpose--as a mechanism to limit the number of potential destinations
18:32:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Imagine trying to use "type ahead" with a huge tree view like the Windows Registry
18:34:18 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: there's also the implementation concern of tree views whose "branches" are expensive to retrieve
18:34:31 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: e.g. for a file system hierarchy which requires disk I/O
18:35:44 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: In those situations, implementations may intentionally defer the population of collapsed items. They can't provide a general search across all the content of the tree view because they haven't retrieved (or otherwise computed) collapsed content
18:36:13 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 2800: HTML structure of listbox with grouped options
18:36:27 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2800
18:37:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is this just another equally valid way of structuring content? Or is it better in some way? Are there any disadvantages?
18:38:47 <jugglinmike> jongund: The suggested approach may be semantically more accurate
18:39:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I have some concerns about indexing, but now that I think about it, I don't know if we have a spec for this case
18:40:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In Chrome, the way indexes are calculated, is that the entire list has 11 items.
18:40:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But at one point in time, there were people arguing about how/when numbering restarts in groups and menus
18:41:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Firefox is different! It says "cat" is "one of five", "reindeer" five of five, and then "dolphin" is one of three
18:41:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have a meaningful difference between Firefox and Chrome, and I think it shouldn't exist
18:42:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wonder what WebKit does, but I'm not going to try that just now
18:42:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: From my perspective, this is one list that just has some groupings within it
18:45:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's kind of funny because HTML doesn't actually have a semantic structure equivalent to "group" which fits within the "UL" element
18:45:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The "select" element does, though
18:46:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In a sense, Firefox is justified in its behavior because the HTML semantics describe three separate lists
18:46:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That would still be the case even in this reporter's example because there are still separate lists (they're just nested)
18:48:38 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: I always thought that role="presentation" applied recursively to all of an element's contents
18:49:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It does, but authors can re-surface specific ancestor nodes by specifying an explicit role on them. This is what the proposed example does
18:51:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: My initial impression was that these were two equivalent way of coding it, that they're both valid, and authors can choose between either. I still feel that way
18:52:09 <jugglinmike> [all in attendence agreed that this is a matter of personal preference]
18:54:31 <jugglinmike> Topic: updating the version of skipTo
18:55:00 <jugglinmike> jongund: I found the template for the example. For the other pages (like the simple "about" pages) are there templates? Or are those more hard-coded
18:55:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: To update the version, you update it in aria-practices, and that will automatically apply everywhere
18:55:33 <jugglinmike> jongund: But I need to add an HTML "data-" attribute to the script tag
18:55:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Oh! That would require two pull requests that would have to be merged simultaneously. I'm not sure how that would work
18:56:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I recommend you open an issue in the WAI-ARIA-Practices repository that describes your requirements, and a pull request in the ARIA-Practices repository that implements what you need to do there
18:57:11 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I will keep a look out for the ARIA-Practices pull request and review it
18:58:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That ARIA-Practices pull request should only modify content/shared/js
18:58:22 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
18:58:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Matt_King, jugglinmike, Jem, howard-e, jongund
18:58:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:58:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/19-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
18:58:32 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:58:32 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
18:58:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
18:58:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg