17:05:45 RRSAgent has joined #aria-editors 17:05:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/05-aria-editors-irc 17:05:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:06:20 Meeting: ARIA Editors 17:06:21 scotto has joined #aria-editors 17:06:37 present+ 17:06:44 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2113 17:06:46 scribe: pkra 17:07:22 pkra: about the abbr elements 17:07:30 spectranaut_: also the question on IDs 17:08:21 pkra: and also proraming vs programming 17:08:50 and also there is a PR for the abbreviate change: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2114 17:08:58 ... I'm pretty bearish about these changes. 17:09:17 scotto: this seems more like a W3C spec issue 17:09:35 ... would make ARIA almost an outlier 17:09:43 ... I'm not a fan of title attribute 17:09:55 ... but wouldn't want to drop abbr entirely 17:10:02 ... sometimes people actually use them. 17:10:35 ... feels strange to rip them out just because there's longstanding issues with screenreaders 17:10:52 spectranaut_: this is just refering to abbr? 17:10:53 scotto: yes. 17:11:04 spectranaut_: and consistent in other specs? 17:11:10 scotto: yes, I would claim that. 17:11:18 ... I think it's often auto-generated 17:11:31 ... spec-ref generates this, I think. 17:14:06 pkra: I feel like they're not too many for the length of the spec but crowded in the introduction. 17:14:34 ... dropping them everywhere would make it difficult to find the context further down in the spec. 17:14:39 ... and people don't read sequentially 17:14:47 ... but in the intro it's crowded. 17:14:58 spectranaut_: so a possible outcome is cleaning up intro? 17:15:21 pkra: yes. define it on first use in a section seems fine. we do that in spec text for xref as well. 17:15:25 spectranaut_: scotto ok? 17:15:54 scotto: yes. AFAIK it's mainly a non-default JAWS behavior. 17:16:24 dmontalvo: VoiceOver has also a particular behavior that can be annoying. 17:16:57 ... but it's also a screenreader behavior and isn't generally a problem 17:17:36 scotto: whenever we can do it, we'd still have respec injection to deal with. And dealing with that would make it inconsistent compared to other specs. 17:17:52 spectranaut_: so we suggest to only make changes to introduction after first use? 17:18:14 scotto: I'd be fine but I'm also ok to not do anything. 17:18:20 pkra: I'd +1 17:18:38 scotto: would prefer not make it inconsistent. 17:18:45 spectranaut_: ok, let's close this then 17:18:52 scotto: let's talk at the meeting maybe. 17:19:12 pkra: I can write a few words on the issue. 17:19:16 spectranaut_: back to the IDs 17:19:20 ... seems obvious no 17:19:25 pkra: yes. 17:20:51 scotto: yes, we should make it consistent going forward but not change anything right now 17:20:54 pkra: let's make issue. 17:21:19 scotto: yeah, we'd have to keep track of custom spans with IDs 17:21:48 dmontalvo: right, we have that in accname and it's painful. 17:22:25 pkra: that was a good fix and worth the pain. this doesn't seem that way. 17:24:04 pkra: then there was the specific ID 17:24:39 ... how did others feel? 17:24:46 dmontalvo: felt the same. 17:24:54 pkra: then there's spelling of pogramming 17:24:58 ... feels like historic 17:25:11 spectranaut_: we should be consistent though. 17:25:59 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2121 17:26:36 spectranaut_: on the IDs, we have some relative consistencies. core-aam has two different styles 17:26:51 zakim, next item 17:26:51 agendum 2 -- [continue] aria-common #109 remove/replace aria-wg-active.md and -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:27:02 pkra: dmontalvo had done a PR 17:27:10 https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/2117 17:27:35 dmontalvo: the automatic preview failed but the manual one should render 17:27:44 ... this of course need to go elsewhere. 17:28:25 spectranaut_: goes into common> 17:28:42 dmontalvo: yes. 17:29:32 pkra: looks good. 17:30:00 spectranaut_: we talked about whether to include it at all. 17:30:25 dmontalvo: right. now that we know we can do it, we can make a decision. 17:30:38 ... do we want to make a decision compared to previous section. 17:31:02 ... "active" is really the previous section. 17:31:41 pkra: just dropping "active" maybe? 17:31:49 spectranaut_: yeah, not bad. 17:31:58 pkra: I'm also ok with just dropping it. 17:32:14 dmontalvo: this might be compulsory. 17:32:51 spectranaut_: and people show up rarely but contribute. 17:37:10 ... next steps? 17:37:17 ... making a PR to all specs and aria-common? 17:37:32 dmontalvo: right. the JS into common, the markup in each spec. 17:37:55 ... wait until aria.js is done 17:38:04 zakim, close item 17:38:04 I don't understand 'close item', pkra 17:38:08 zakim, close this item 17:38:08 agendum 2 closed 17:38:09 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:38:09 3. [continue] automation and synonyms (via aria #2073) [from agendabot] 17:38:54 pkra: we can skip the rest, I think 17:42:01 scotto: html-aam has a lot of old PRs 17:42:01 ... some just need updates. 17:42:01 ... some lack reviews 17:42:08 ... and then there's the process. 17:42:08 ... I'm unclear when I can merge things 17:42:08 ... e.g., getting WPT or filling browser issues 17:42:39 ... sometimes there seems consensus but then massive comment comes in which throws a wrench into things. 17:43:00 ... especially the last few weeks, I couldn't be around and stuff doesn't get done. 17:43:45 ... we need another editor. 17:44:12 ... feels like entire ARIA meetings are about html-aam. 17:44:37 spectranaut_: thank you for voicing that. 17:44:55 ... initial thoughts: brainstorm a better process 17:45:03 ... in html specs specifically 17:45:25 ... also, we have the new process. we can try to refine it to make sure it makes sense. 17:45:48 ... I would be ready to sit down for that. 17:46:06 ... process needs to not just ensure a good spec but serve us as a group 17:46:31 ... the unsolved problem of html-aam: review means review by implementers? 17:46:41 scotto: yes, usually. 17:47:02 ... I understand that that's not always possible. 17:47:09 ... but we need a check-in for PR status. 17:47:24 ... it's not just html-aam 17:47:38 spectranaut_: yes, that's a change James & I can do more actively 17:47:53 scotto: I usually write the change 17:48:11 ... but then also the individual bugs. 17:48:26 ... but for new content, it's a lot, too. 17:48:45 ... feels like there's more work for html-related changes than just ARIA 17:49:05 ... every single core-aam and html-aam change needs full suite of tests. 17:49:22 spectranaut_: agreed. 17:49:44 scotto: if WPT were done by somebody else, that would be good. 17:50:22 ... e.g., figcaption tests. I can put them into the issue but don't have time to put them into WPT proper. 17:50:47 spectranaut_: could it help to have backlog issues "test for this change"? 17:51:04 ... I would assign myself for these. 17:51:16 scotto: could I do this after merge? 17:51:47 ... could we make a column for tests? 17:51:52 spectranaut_: that's a good idea. 17:52:46 ... and we can tune the process if there are more ideas 17:52:55 pkra: but we still need additional editor? 17:52:59 spectranaut_: right. 17:53:21 scotto: dividing items would help very much. suitable chunks seem easy. 17:53:58 scotto: separate item - what is the status of aria-in-html? 17:54:08 ... end of year we talked about bringing it into ARIA WG 17:54:49 dmontalvo: technically would be part of new charter. after extension that would be ~August. 17:55:31 scotto: I'd like to avoid web apps WG dropping it before it's with ARIA WG. 17:55:48 dmontalvo: yes, there's a small risk of that. 17:56:13 ... I'll check if we can start working on it. 18:00:22 zakim, end meeting 18:00:22 As of this point the attendees have been pkra, spectranaut_, scotto 18:00:23 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 18:00:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/05-aria-editors-minutes.html Zakim 18:00:31 I am happy to have been of service, pkra; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:00:32 Zakim has left #aria-editors