Relax name requirement for Radio, Dialog, Grid, etc.

[adampage]

To align with the imminent merge of w3c/aria#2297, we should make sure the APG doesn’t imply that a group name is required for the affected patterns (e.g., Radio Group, Dialog, Table).

cc: @pkra / @spectranaut / @scottaohara

[adampage]

The Providing Accessible Names and Descriptions page also specifies whether names are “Required”, “Discretionary”, “Prohibited”, etc. for each role.

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA Authoring Practices (APG) Task Force just discussed Issue 3244 - Change naming guidance for radio group, grid, table, dialog.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 3244 - Change naming guidance for radio group, grid, table, dialog
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//issues/3244
<jugglinmike> mk: I guess this issue could end up having multiple sub-issues--one for each pattern that needs to change
<jugglinmike> mk: I haven't reviewed all of these to know how many changes might be driven by this
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: They asked me to raise this in APG during last week's ARIA call
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: I haven't looked too deeply, yet--just at three pattern pages. All three imply that a name is needed, but it's kind of an editorial question
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: I don't know if it's on us to encourage any of these patterns to have these names because everyone admits that those are kind of narrow use cases
<jugglinmike> mk: Yes, we do avoid the normative language entirely and intentionally
<jugglinmike> mk: the way we handle this editorially is there is one thing we've done in the naming practice--the accessible names and descriptions practice page
<jugglinmike> mk: We have a table of guidance for every role, and we do distinguish "required" versus "recommended"
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: That's very severe language that may not be true for much longer
<jugglinmike> mk: It's okay to get ahead of that pull request and land a change before it is merged
<jugglinmike> mk: In the patterns, we do use the word "optional" sometimes.
<jugglinmike> mk: Mike Gower [sp?] has a pull request related to "tab". I was reviewing that and I decided I need to review other examples to find appropriate wording for consistency
<jugglinmike> mk: I'm trying to figure out which practice we have previously established, here. I think the right thing to do would be to describe that in this issue
<jugglinmike> mk: Sometimes, we add notes where we try to specify what's important about the naming
<jugglinmike> mk: I guess, for this, one person could take it on. I'm not going to put my name on this issue, yet, but I will help spec it out
<jugglinmike> mk: Hopefully we'll be able to find someone else to work on it
<jugglinmike> mk: I'm labeling as "required for ARIA spec"
<jugglinmike> mk: We don't know the timeline for merging that, do we?
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: Oh! It's already merged!
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: It was merged just one hour ago
<jugglinmike> mk: Ah, I guess we have to prioritize this, then
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: Scott also filed a follow-up issue with IBM's equal-access checker to encourage them to remove the associated test
<jugglinmike> mk: I'm going to label this "P1"
<jugglinmike> mk: Because this merged, it goes into the editor's draft. Actually--did we change ARIA? Is it evergreen? Will that change go to TR?
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: I don't know. I wish Daniel were here to answer that question
<jugglinmike> mk: We don't want APG to be out of sync. I kind of wish it wasn't merged until we had aligned on a timeline
<jugglinmike> mk: ARIA changes this, but it would be really nice if someone from the ARIA Working Group would do the merge, here
<jugglinmike> mk: Well, for now, I've marked this as "P1"
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: We could place a disclaimer at the top of affected pages to give warning about a breaking change in the ARIA spec
<jugglinmike> mk: I think that would be a whole new can of worms
<jugglinmike> Adam_Page: Yeah...