18:00:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
18:00:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/30-aria-irc
18:00:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:00:47 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA WG
18:00:47 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
18:00:47 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ecffaf8b-8aa7-4acc-b238-6088a86cf12f/20231130T130000/
18:00:47 <agendabot> clear agenda
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New Issue Triage https://tinyurl.com/2y3332ba
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> New PR Triage https://tinyurl.com/yc7bz7xf
18:00:47 <pkra> present+
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> WPT Open PRs https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aweb-platform-tests%2Fwpt+is%3Aopen+label%3Awai-aria%2Caccname&type=pullrequests
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ F2F in Boston in April?
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ Charter extension
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Rethink definition / term relationship and naming https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2074
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Hierarchy of treeitems per aria level only? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2065
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> describe grouping (and naming of the group) for exclusive accordions <details name> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/509
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Consider a mechanism to associate controls without an explicit grouping https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1721
18:00:47 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Consider creation of a fieldsize/maxlength property https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1119
18:00:48 <agendabot> agenda+ -> ARIAMixin has many integer attributes with string types and uses DOMString? incorrectly https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1110
18:00:51 <agendabot> agenda+ -> handling multi-selection / selection confirmation of action for menus https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2067
18:01:11 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #aria
18:01:21 <jamesn> chair: JamesNurthen
18:02:04 <melsumner> melsumner has joined #aria
18:03:02 <Francis_Storr> present+
18:03:41 <scotto> scotto has joined #aria
18:04:16 <Rahim> present+
18:04:21 <scotto> present+
18:06:20 <Adam_Page> present+
18:06:49 <spectranaut_> present+
18:07:45 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #aria
18:07:50 <melsumner> present+
18:08:06 <jaunita_george> present+
18:08:11 <marcelo-paiva> marcelo-paiva has joined #aria
18:08:15 <keithamus> scribe+
18:08:19 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #aria
18:08:22 <giacomo-petri> present+
18:08:26 <marcelo-paiva> present+
18:08:31 <keithamus> Zakim: next item
18:08:38 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:08:38 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://tinyurl.com/2y3332ba -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:09:03 <BGaraventa> BGaraventa has joined #aria
18:09:30 <keithamus> jamesn, 2 new issues: Accname stable branch, it has a few comments already - if the commenters need help we can get that in the right state.
18:10:06 <keithamus> jamesn, next one is whether aria-labelledby maps to AXDescription or AXTitle. We need James or Rahim to look at this. Can we assign this to you Rahim?
18:10:11 <keithamus> Rahim, sounds good
18:10:17 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:10:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://tinyurl.com/yc7bz7xf -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:10:58 <keithamus> jamesn, only one new PR, editorial. Scott if you need help, let us know. Myself or Peter can probably help with how specs link together.
18:11:05 <BGaraventa> present+
18:11:12 <keithamus> scotto, there's some hardcoded instances, I'm not blocked though
18:11:20 <keithamus> Zakim, close this item
18:11:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
18:11:21 <Zakim> I see 11 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:11:21 <Zakim> 3. -> WPT Open PRs https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aweb-platform-tests%2Fwpt+is%3Aopen+label%3Awai-aria%2Caccname&type=pullrequests [from agendabot]
18:11:32 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:11:32 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> WPT Open PRs https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aweb-platform-tests%2Fwpt+is%3Aopen+label%3Awai-aria%2Caccname&type=pullrequests -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:12:15 <keithamus> jamesn, only one WPT PR. accname one. People need to review. Waiting on that. Nothing needs doing it seems.
18:12:21 <keithamus> Zakim, close this item
18:12:21 <Zakim> agendum 3 closed
18:12:22 <Zakim> I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:12:22 <Zakim> 4. -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates [from agendabot]
18:12:25 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:12:25 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:12:49 <keithamus> jamesn, do we want to plan deep dives for the rest of the year? Would we like to have an extra meeting to talk about the issues on this list? Or any others?
18:12:52 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #aria
18:13:00 <StefanS> present+
18:13:24 <keithamus> jamesn, I think we can not do deep dives for the rest of the year, any objections?
18:13:31 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:13:31 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- F2F in Boston in April? -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:14:07 <keithamus> jamesn, F2F next year, potentially Boston? Can we make this more concrete? Does April in Boston sound reasonable to aim for?
18:14:16 <Adam_Page> yes to April in Boston
18:14:19 <marcelo-paiva> Boston works for me
18:14:25 <keithamus> Cory: Not the first week
18:14:30 <BGaraventa> Possibly for me yes
18:14:31 <keithamus> melsumner, not the second week
18:14:57 <spectranaut_> not the first or second week for me, actually
18:15:22 <marcelo-paiva> Any opportunities to meet at CSUN?
18:15:48 <spectranaut_> actually maybe i could do the second week, end of the second week
18:15:52 <keithamus> jamesn, A core reason for boston is for Scott and Aaron to attend
18:16:03 <spectranaut_> sounds like third week won't work for scott
18:16:13 <keithamus> Matthew: Should we do a poll?
18:16:31 <keithamus> jamesn, do we have a host?
18:17:03 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:17:03 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Charter extension -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:17:32 <jaunita_george> +1
18:17:36 <keithamus> jamesn, we will not be able to complete charter before expiry. Proposing a straw poll to supporting a 6 month charter extension; +1 please.
18:17:42 <scotto> +1
18:17:42 <jamesn> +1
18:17:43 <melsumner> +1
18:17:43 <pkra> +1
18:17:45 <spectranaut_> +1
18:17:49 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #aria
18:17:49 <BGaraventa> +1
18:17:50 <giacomo-petri> +1
18:17:54 <Francis_Storr> +1
18:17:57 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
18:17:57 <marcelo-paiva> +1
18:18:02 <Matt_King> +1
18:18:08 <Rahim> q+
18:18:08 <keithamus> jamesn, anyone disagree? -1 please.
18:18:13 <Matt_King> present+
18:18:20 <keithamus> Rahim, could you explain what the charter extension is?
18:19:11 <keithamus> jamesn, we have 2 year charters to explain what the group is doing. It expires in January, without the charter we cannot publish - so we need to have an active charter. We can extend by 6 months as 2 years is sometimes short. We're working on the new charter but it's not done yet. So we're asking for a 6 month extension.
18:19:22 <keithamus> Rahim, do CGs have charters?
18:19:30 <keithamus> jamesn, no
18:19:43 <jamesn> RESOLUTION: Group approves requesting a charter extension
18:19:52 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:19:52 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, keithamus
18:19:57 <jamesn> ack Rahim
18:20:00 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:20:00 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- -> Rethink definition / term relationship and naming https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2074 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:20:16 <keithamus> jamesn, rethink definition term/relationship naming
18:22:07 <keithamus> scotto, Reviewing this for WPT, definition & term rules have shifting over ARIA versions. I'm wondering if the naming of them made sense. When we came up with the definition naming, we stated one could create an association between the two with aria-labelledby; e.g dd could be named by dt. aria-details wasn't used. In aria annotations work, it was
18:22:07 <keithamus> explicitly stated that labelledby shouldn't be used and it should be details. Makes me question naming term & definition more.
18:22:21 <CoryJoseph_> CoryJoseph_ has joined #aria
18:22:26 <jamesn> q+
18:22:27 <CoryJoseph_> CoryJoseph_ has left #aria
18:22:32 <jamesn> ack me
18:22:34 <keithamus> scotto, dt & dd kind of go hand in hand with other roles that are prohibited from naming. Overall suggestion is clarify the relationship and prohibit naming.
18:22:55 <keithamus> jamesn, details sounds far more appropriate, definitions can include structured content, where label isn't appropriate.
18:23:50 <BGaraventa> +q
18:24:08 <keithamus> Matt_King, one q; if you're talking about using definition and term inside/outside a list structure, specifying a relationship between the two isn't a good idea - it'll be a lot of noise. Outside of the context ... but inside the context it would be confusing. There should be guidelines on if you need a relationship at all
18:24:46 <CoryJoseph_> CoryJoseph_ has joined #aria
18:25:17 <keithamus> scotto, in version past terms were associated with dt and definitions with dd - then we had association lists, explicitly changed the spec so that term is the definition element in html. definition role doesn't have html equivalent any more. So yes Matt, per your point I wouldn't expect them outside a list. Further they shouldn't be used inside a
18:25:17 <keithamus> list anywya
18:25:45 <jamesn> qv?
18:25:47 <keithamus> Matt_King, if they're outside the list ... I guess I'd want it to be supported to use .. but not required.It's not clear a realtionship is ordinarily needed. Just allowed.
18:26:22 <keithamus> scotto, anyone using aria-attributes would need to hook them up. If you put them in wildly different places in the dom then make sure there's a details relationship. Otherwise people can figure it out
18:26:28 <jamesn> ack BGaraventa
18:26:54 <jamesn> q+
18:27:41 <keithamus> BGaraventa, part of the challenge - I had to write an internal policy to prohibit aria-details for anything mainly because it's so badly supported. When we created aria-details we talked about being able to navigate into it, like a dialog, you could navigate the contents of the structure, then navigate back out. Right now it focusses the location
18:27:41 <keithamus> and leaves you there; it's confusing because if there is an association, you can get there but you can't get back.
18:28:06 <keithamus> jamesn, Aaron has been working on getting better AT support for details. Please contact Aaron and work with him on that.
18:28:39 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
18:28:42 <keithamus> scotto, each screen reader has their own keys to navigate to and shift plus those keys sends you back...
18:29:15 <keithamus> jamesn, we want to push people to use aria-details more, by doing so we improve support more. Now it's used for annotations or other things, with more good usage we'll see a push to support it become higher.
18:29:47 <keithamus> Matt_King, I agree with Brian; I know Aaron tried but I almost feel we need to formalize it better. We spent time in the F2F but we need to spend more time on it.
18:29:55 <keithamus> BGaraventa, is there a section that deals with it?
18:30:08 <keithamus> Matt_King, not yet. It's not even on the roadmap for ARIA AT testing.
18:31:04 <jamesn> q+
18:31:07 <keithamus> Matt_King, It feels kind of undefined, Aaron owns it and it's in a Google Doc somewhere. What we don't have is an appropriate venue, form, and process to raise issues related to things like AT behavior; really following them to their conclusion.
18:31:41 <keithamus> jamesn, I agree but that's one of the issues we've always faced. AT folks almost don't want to be involved at that level; the formality of being told what to do. Each conversation needs to be individual rather than group conversations.
18:31:44 <jamesn> ack me
18:32:02 <keithamus> Matt_King, we're making good progress on that front... anyway, it's a different topic from term+definition...
18:32:14 <keithamus> jamesn, does anyone think label is the right approach? Or a bad approach?
18:32:19 <keithamus> Matt_King, that's a bad approach
18:32:47 <keithamus> scotto, I'll just make the PR for this and... I just want to verify that we're okay to changing these two. Besides the details relationship, I think that's the change we need here.
18:32:51 <keithamus> Matt_King, I'd support that.
18:32:54 <keithamus> jamesn, I'd agree
18:33:00 <jamesn> agenda?
18:33:10 <keithamus> Matt_King, related q: do we expect AT to reveal those roles? They're not generic, right?
18:33:22 <keithamus> scotto, support is varied, but it does exist. The roles are announced.
18:33:38 <keithamus> scotto, I'll dig up the file and send it to you for clarity.
18:34:19 <keithamus> Matt_King, I just wonder; maybe they're not used much? Maybe it doesn't matter, but... they feel a little like noise to me. Is the purpose of them in HTML really more for machine parsing or styling? Semantically you usually know what is the term and what is the definition from the content.
18:34:47 <keithamus> scotto, term is the only one that exists as the definition <dfn> element. Definition as the role doesn't exist...
18:34:51 <keithamus> jamesn, why?
18:35:08 <keithamus> scotto, term came first? The <dfn> is to wrap the term, not to wrap the definition
18:35:24 <keithamus> Matt_King, what do you do with the definition?
18:35:27 <sarah> sarah has joined #aria
18:35:30 <keithamus> scotto, that's just a span
18:35:42 <keithamus> Matt_King, why did we not map <dfn> to generic? When we did 1.2?
18:36:01 <keithamus> scotto, term actually is what the <dfn> is. That's where the parity is
18:36:33 <keithamus> Matt_King, oh did we have term in 1.1? Honestly I've never seen it used in practice. If it was generic, <dfn> mapped to generic, we wouldn't have any of these questions.
18:36:39 <keithamus> scotto, that seems like a bigger PR
18:37:55 <keithamus> Matt_King, I ask because the more roles that are announced that are unfamiliar and rarely used - they end up posing more confusion than clarity (my personal experience). When I hear some word announced - "term" - and I don't know why, it can get confusing. I'm just wondering if it's one of those things that it should be in ARIA. Maybe `<dfn>`
18:37:55 <keithamus> should map to generic?
18:38:10 <keithamus> jamesn, if you think that maybe file a new issue?
18:38:28 <keithamus> jamesn, Scott, why not create the PR and in that process we can investigate what it means to deprecate.
18:38:36 <keithamus> scotto, That's fine by me
18:39:00 <keithamus> scotto, we don't need this stuff but we have it. My take is make it better, but if "better" to people is get rid I'm happy
18:39:01 <jamesn> q?
18:39:05 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:39:05 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- -> Hierarchy of treeitems per aria level only? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2065 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:39:53 <keithamus> jamesn, Matt you said this was a mapping issue?
18:41:30 <sarah> q+
18:41:53 <keithamus> Matt_King, you can make a grid by putting aria row level on the rows and aria set size, and the child rows that get shown when you expand a node, they're not nested. They don't even have to be nested in the row group. That's how we've crafted the tree grid - people look at that and say "why can't we do a tree that way". A tree with nesting and no
18:41:54 <keithamus> groups and level/setsize and determine the relationships.
18:42:15 <jamesn> ack sarah
18:42:16 <keithamus> Matt_King, ...we don't require row groups... I'm not sure this is a positive direction to go in. That's my understanding of the issue.
18:42:54 <sarah> ack me
18:42:58 <keithamus> sarah, throwing out a use case: it can be quite difficult to handle inserting groups when you're dynamically rendering tree items. So being able to do this... it's something we just did already and it kind of works, so having it official to work with that use case would be good.
18:43:14 <keithamus> Matt_King, well it sounds like if it works then it doesn't have a problem mapping this correctly.
18:43:33 <keithamus> sarah, we're also doing aria setsize etc on every item so nothing is left to calculate really.
18:43:38 <keithamus> Matt_King, you have aria-expanded on the parent?
18:43:40 <keithamus> sarah, yeah
18:43:59 <keithamus> Matt_King, so is there a relationship of any kind between parent/children? Aria controls wouldn't do anything here?
18:44:06 <keithamus> jamesn, parent might not even exist in dom
18:44:17 <keithamus> sarah, any time a parent group of x tree items might not be in the dom
18:44:29 <keithamus> Matt_King, so if a user is on a tree item and presses left...?
18:44:34 <keithamus> sarah, we handle that
18:44:45 <keithamus> jamesn, so it's non conformant?
18:45:27 <keithamus> Matt_King, any downsides to this? On the validation side? Levels have to be calculated by scripting, not the browser.
18:45:39 <keithamus> Matt_King, I guess there's no way for a checking tool to validate those values are correct?
18:46:22 <keithamus> Matt_King, it would just be a bug that an AT tester might check? If you had aria-level skipping levels or pause/set missing items or some things of that nature - that's something that can only be detected with manual testing?
18:46:44 <keithamus> sarah, that's similar to right now. In a virtualised tree with "correct markup" if you scroll out of view... yeah
18:46:57 <keithamus> Matt_King, oh so if they're out of dom aria-level is the wrong level?
18:47:09 <keithamus> sarah, well its the right level in that it's virtual
18:47:18 <keithamus> Matt_King, but if you didn't specify the browser would calculate the wrong level
18:47:57 <keithamus> Matt_King, required states+properties are ... how would we do this in the characteristics table in the spec? We put them on required states+properties?... how would you do that James?
18:48:37 <keithamus> jamesn, if its in an if, you put it in supportive and add normative text.
18:49:00 <keithamus> Matt_King, so the change would be writing normative statements - if you're not doing nested authors MUST specify aria-level/setsize/pause/set on every tree item?
18:49:12 <keithamus> BGaraventa, how does aria-owns fit into this to reassociate when not nested?
18:49:26 <keithamus> Matt_King, you don't need aria-owns if it is within the tree
18:49:57 <keithamus> BGaraventa, so if you have a tree with a subtree, my understanding is the browser would calculate the set of grouping as its own level.
18:50:00 <keithamus> Matt_King, it does yes.
18:50:13 <keithamus> BGaraventa, where is the break down as far as the issue goes?
18:50:34 <keithamus> BGaraventa, I'm trying to understand what the problem is. Why is level not being computed properly?
18:51:30 <keithamus> Matt_King, the issue isnt level. Authors should be able to create a tree without any grouping, by specifying level/pause/set on every tree item. Then the grouping is optional. If you had aria-owns, in this case.. there wouldn't be any groups so you couldn't pull items from outside the tree.
18:51:53 <keithamus> Matt_King, if you want all the tree items at the end of the tree you could put the items on the tree element.
18:52:06 <keithamus> BGaraventa, different ways of doing it... I agree.
18:52:15 <keithamus> Matt_King, it wouldn't change the spec for aria-owns, I think.
18:52:49 <keithamus> Rahim, when role=group is provided in a tree; does anything else do this? Like nested accordions?
18:53:03 <keithamus> Matt_King, it happens in lists, if you're making an accordion you just do it with heading levels
18:53:14 <keithamus> BGaraventa, nested tabs? It should but I don't believe it does.
18:53:33 <keithamus> jamesn, there's something in one of the specs that details how this should work - but the prose needs work. I think there's an open issue.
18:54:11 <keithamus> Matt_King, browsers are not required to calculate level. There's no normative text.
18:55:01 <keithamus> jamesn, 1194 is the issue. Anyone want to take it on?
18:55:04 <keithamus> sarah, I can
18:55:32 <keithamus> Matt_King, sounds like we want to have someone to write a PR for this changing tree? Is this assigned?
18:55:48 <keithamus> jamesn, Sarah do you want to take this on too?
18:55:56 <keithamus> sarah, I'll take this on, what was the other?
18:56:22 <keithamus> Matt_King, we already have the browser language, it's just not worded normatively. It says browsers WILL not browsers MUST.
18:56:25 <keithamus> sarah, okay sure.
18:56:39 <keithamus> jamesn, looking at them together is useful. I never understood why we required groups in trees.
18:57:18 <keithamus> Matt_King, oh - Rahim, the other place this is important is menus. Menus do this too. That's probably where we see it the most. I don't think we do nesting in the APG - but I think we have the same problem there basically.
18:57:38 <keithamus> Zakim, next item
18:57:38 <Zakim> agendum 9 -- -> describe grouping (and naming of the group) for exclusive accordions <details name> https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/509 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:57:52 <keithamus> jamesn, oh we can't get through this in 3 minutes.
18:57:58 <keithamus> scotto, *laughs*
18:58:04 <keithamus> jamesn, let's wrap.
18:58:28 <keithamus> Zakim, end meeting
18:58:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pkra, Francis_Storr, Rahim, scotto, Adam_Page, spectranaut_, melsumner, jaunita_george, giacomo-petri, marcelo-paiva, BGaraventa, StefanS,
18:58:31 <Zakim> ... Matt_King
18:58:31 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
18:58:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/30-aria-minutes.html Zakim
18:58:39 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, keithamus; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:58:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria
18:59:36 <melsumner> melsumner has left #aria
18:59:46 <melsumner> melsumner has joined #aria
19:00:44 <bkardell_> bkardell_ has joined #aria
19:32:01 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
20:35:41 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
21:37:06 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
22:38:25 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria
23:42:00 <jongund_> jongund_ has joined #aria