Luke::Intent sent. Being reviewed by CSS. Decline?

Jeffrey: There was a presentation at BlinkOn that made it seeem that this was a piece of a complicated way of doing "drawers." That bigger system that this was part of seemed like it was worth looking at. Like, with carousels, the pieces looked fine but the overall system wasn't quite right. We might want to look in that way, but I don't know whether I have the expertise to actually perform that review.

Luke: Yes, this is part of a declarative overscroll thing from OpenUI: https://open-ui.org/components/overscroll-actions.explainer/. This is useful for that, but is a standalone isolated bit, which is why it's shipping as it is. It's useful on its own. No submission for the overall thing yet. Think it's ok to say that this piece is fine. Then do the larger thing when they request it.

Lola: Are there accessibility considerations for this? None in the explainer. Even a "no accessibility considerations" would be helpful. The explainer is short and assumes a lot of knowledge. Don't know what the technical terms mean. Can decline to review, but part of the reason is that there's not enough information.

Luke: Can comment that, and privacy and security. Can say there are no considerations, but should have it.

Matthew: +1 to please have an "accessibility considerations" section, even if it's empty. That shouldn't be special. Should have "all of them". Internationalization might be "obvious", but if there's a possibility, should encourage that too.

Jeffrey: I doubt it's obvious because right-to-left is quite likely to be affected by overscroll.

Luke: We should always encourage those sections. Might be obvious to me, but if someone else is reading, they should know it's been considered.

Matthew: Worth mentioning in the explainer explainer?

Jeffrey: I think it's already mentioned

Luke + Lola assigned.

Lola: I left draft comment. It seems fine and they have not given us much to work it. I don't see any critical accessibility issues. Some parts of it is good for cognitive accessibilities.

Luke: is there a chance to ask them on S&P section?

Lola: there is not much from them, but they included S&P section in the spec itself. It fullfils those requirements; however, I don't see accessibility consideration. Maybe worth asking them as it has positive impact on it.

Luke: I think this aspect is fine, the reason why they are doing that is more important.

Lola: do you want to review it Luke?

Luke: I don't have any concrete feedback. I think it is fine for you to draft a comment.

Lola: ok.

Lola to draft the comment.

bump

Luke: I will double check the minutes, but think the conclusion was we were happy with this overall, but provide some input on bits that were missing from the explainer. Will follow up with Lola.