Meeting minutes
arigilmore+
<Jem> https://
Setup and Review Agenda
Jem: Any requests for change to agenda?
Jem: hearing none, we'll move forward with the agenda as planned
Jem: Next meeting: July 2
Jem: No meeting July 9
Publication planning
Matt_King: I think we should shoot for the 23rd or 30th of July...
Matt_King: Daniel isn't present today, so I don't know if there are any considerations on the W3C side.
Matt_King: Are there any considerations relevant on the Bocoup side?
howard-e: Either date is okay on our end
Matt_King: I guess the problem with the 22nd is that it only leaves us two more meetings
Matt_King: That said, we can probably get a lot of the pending items done in that time
Matt_King: The high-contrast work might take longer, though, especially since John Gunderson will only have partial availability
Matt_King: Pending final review by Howard: PR 3024 - Coverage and Quality Report: Add reporting on use of forced-colors media query and currentcolor value by jongund w3c/
Matt_King: It didn't look like that was getting updated, so I put a comment in the pull request and asked you to re-review it
howard-e: Yup, I was able to check that out. There was an issue with the build repository (it came from the experimental content push that we did recently). That's been resolved
howard-e: I submitted a patch for that this morning; now, the pull request generates properly
howard-e: Separately, the coverage check is failing. The lint stage was never capturing whenever the script itself is changed alone in a pull request
Matt_King: You mean the coverage script, right?
howard-e: Right
howard-e: My thinking is that if the script itself is changing structural details about the report, then it ought to trigger
Matt_King: Ah, so that would include changes to the template, too, right?
howard-e: Right
howard-e: I submitted pull request #3048 for this purpose
Matt_King: So if we merge #3048, then the job we re-run if we push another commit to #3024
howard-e: That's right
Matt_King: I'll take a look at #3048, merge that, then merge "main" into #3024. That merge ought to make the job run again, right
howard-e: I think you'll have to manually re-run even in that case, since your merge commit won't touch the files which are being monitored
Matt_King: Got it. So #3024 is on its way
Matt_King: next up, Review pending: PR 3025 - Ratings Slider: Use buttontext instead of linktext system color in high contrast mode by jongund w3c/
Matt_King: It looks like John added some screen shots
Jem: Got it. I will get to another review today
Matt_King: So we're thinking of a release date of July 29th
Jem: That sounds good to me
Matt_King: If we have everything ready except for the high-contrast page, and it looks like the high-contrast page is going to take longer, we can potentially pull the release date forward to July 22
New member
Jem: I'd like to add a quick agenda item
Jem: Adam Page is going to join the APG Taskforce
Jem: I'd like to give them an orientation on July 15, and it would be great if you folks could join. I will send you all an invitation.
Change to HTML source section on example pages
github: w3c/
Matt_King: Right now, this pull request is changing a single example page
Matt_King: But if folks agree with this direction, then we'd like to make the change to every single page
arigilmore: I updated the JavaScript to inject an "Open in Codepen" to an element with a certain HTML ID. All we'll need to do to add the change to other pages is add that HTML ID to each of the HTML files.
Matt_King: Is the button positioned similar to how it's positioned in the "example" section?
arigilmore: Yeah, it follows the paragraph that describes the section, and it precedes the rendering of the source code
Matt_King: And does it behave appropriately for alternate viewport sizes?
arigilmore: Yes
Jem: Do we need to have a distinguishable button text for these two buttons?
Matt_King: No, because they both do the exact same thing, so it's important that they have the same label
Jem: Ah, I understand, now (I thought the behavior of the second button was special for the HTML code)
Matt_King: Before we make the change on 59 other example pages, does this look good?
Jem: Yeah!
Matt_King: Okay, then I think we're good to go
Matt_King: There are 3 pages (e.g. listbox, layout grid, and data grid) that have three examples on the same page, so pay special attention to those ones
arigilmore: Got it
Matt_King: By the way, I've been wanting to refactor those so there is only one example per page, but that involves changing some of the prose, so it's taking me some time
Matt_King: Anyway, this is one of those ones that we don't want to sit around for too long because it touches so many files
New patterns page filter
github: w3c/
Jem: This is awesome!
Matt_King: I have a few questions
Matt_King: It seems like the filter happens dynamically as you type. That how it feels to me as a screen reader user
Matt_King: I didn't have to press the "submit" button, so I don't know what the purpose of the "submit" button is
Matt_King: Are there any circumstances where you need that button?
howard-e: It doesn't seem like there is a need for that button
Matt_King: I do think that a button labeled "Clear Filter" would be very useful. Without it, in order to see all the patterns again, you have to select all the text and delete it
arigilmore: Carbon offers a feature like this using an "X" button inside the search bar
Matt_King: The "clear" button is visually inside the search bar, but not in terms of the DOM, right?
arigilmore: That's right
<arigilmore> https://
Matt_King: We should change the placeholder text to read "Filter patterns"
Jem: Maybe the heading should read "Search patterns" instead of "Filter"
Matt_King: That may be misleading. Some folks may read the worth "Search" and expect that their query will be evaluated against the entire content of each pattern
Matt_King: As it stands, the query is only matching against the titles of the patterns that are present on the page
Matt_King: I think that's more generally recognized as a "filter" operation
Jem: Okay; could we also change the heading to "Filter patterns" instead of just "Filter"?
Matt_King: Sure
Three or more levels in disclosure nav menus
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I think this is a great question
Matt_King: I don't feel like this is something we necessarily want to do to the APG example
Matt_King: Although I would note that the example does kind of flatten the hierarchy in that navigation
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: If we look at the disclosure show/hide navigation menu example
Matt_King: We have the "mythical university navigation" which has "about", "admissions", etc.
Matt_King: If you expand "About", we have "Overview", "Administration", "FAQs", and "Campus Tours"
<Jem> https://
Matt_King: In navigation menu bar, we have two levels
Matt_King: Under "FAQs" in the navigation menu bar, it expands to "History", etc
Matt_King: We don't have that level shown in the "disclosure"
Matt_King: In that way, these examples are not equivalent
Matt_King: Should we show what it would be like to do a third level in this navigation in the disclosure version?
Matt_King: The person who raised this issue is asking, if we were to do that, how would we do it?
Matt_King: From an ARIA standpoint, it's fairly straightforward. That "FAQs" link wouldn't be a link; it would be a disclosure button
Matt_King: When you compare these two examples visually, are they different in terms of the way they cover up other content?
Matt_King: Do the disclosure ones visually overlay the disclosure content on top of the content that's below it? Or do they move it down?
Matt_King: Because menus always pop *over* content, but disclosures generally push content down
arigilmore: It appears overlaid on top of the content
jugglinmike: We're over time
Matt_King: We're not going to wrap up this issue today. We'll keep it on the agenda for next time