This post summarizes the weekly Editor meeting on Wednesday, 8th May 2019, 13:00 UTC held in Slack.
The agenda followed can be found here.
Volunteers for Note-Taking Requested
As there are not very many folks who are taking notes for the chat at the moment, volunteers were requested. @nosolosw, @andraganescu, and @jorgefilipecosta offered to help out.
WordPress 5.2
WordPress 5.2 was released! Thanks to everyone who helped!
@youknowriad noted that he wasn’t sure why all of these things weren’t highlighted in the release post, but updates include:
- No more TinyMCE in blocks
- Block Management UI
- Performance more than doubled in async mode
- All widgets ported to blocks
- A lot of improvements to existing blocks (cover block with inner blocks, focal point picker,…)
- Stability improvements
- Zero-config scripts to help authors create blocks
Accessibility Audit
The accessibility audit has been published. This is a great resource to improve the accessibility of the editor. Thank you to everyone that worked on it!
@andraganescu, @karmatosed, and @mapk attended the Accessibility chat to collaborate (recap was posted on the agenda post).
Design has done two triage sessions focused on the report (the next is on Friday, May 10, 2019 at 14:00 UTC), and development has already started in fixing some of the issues found.
The project board can be found here, and issues are also being grouped into labels (like [a11y] Keyboard & Focus). There’s interest in solving all validated issues that were found.
Several folks expressed interest in an a11y focused WordPress release, with the note that it would need to be a broader conversation with core + leadership.
@bemdesign mentioned, and others agreed, that while automation can help, a11y should ultimately be built into the process. Tenon, the company that ran the audit, provided documentation on how they tested.
Some recommended next steps included:
- Aim for closing the project board by the end of May
- Focus all triages until that can happen
- Consider adding a column for deeper conversations / focuses and make issues for those
- Dev-triage session focused on the board next week (Monday)
- If you’re looking for an issue to tackle, take a look at this board first 🙂
Task Coordination
-
@nerrad:
-
@aduth has an initial pass of resizable columns to share
-
@andraganescu
-
@notnownikki
-
@joen is working with @kjellr on various ways to improve parent block selection.
-
@gziolo refactored a few core blocks to better follow the Block Registration API RFC. The Puppeteer upgrade uncovered a few unstable tests which they’re going to skip until the root cause is fixed.
-
@jorgefilipecosta
- Working on fixes for the generic block editor and functionality missing from the widgets screen.
-
@noisysocks to help get the widget’s block editor prototype merged.
-
@mapk
-
@karmatosed
- Running triages and unblocking anything a11y audit-wise.
- Cleared out the ‘User Experience (UX)’ label that was confusing things for design and becoming a bit of a lost label.
- There will be a testing table at WCEU for Gutenberg. Post to come soon with more details.
-
@kjellr
- Working on improving child/parent block selection and this PR to make theme styles for the Group block easier to implement.
- Then, back to Twenty Nineteen + Twenty Thirteen group block patches, with updates for these changes.
-
@nosolosw is working on the handbook migration to DevHub.
-
@danr is resuming work on the table block: PR for adding header/footer rows ready. Did some explorations on keyboard navigation between cells, and will work on adding captions.
Note: Anyone reading this summary outside of the meeting, please drop a comment if you can/want to help with something.
Open Floor
@karmatosed asked if anyone would be interested in working with them on more detailed RC notes to be included in calls for testing.
@aduth raised a question about merge permissions.
“Is there a good sense of criteria for this to be granted? Or similar to core committer status, at discretion of leadership?”
Folks present seemed to be in consensus that this should be clarified, even if it’s only in terms of documenting general expectations.
Recommendations on criteria often included a number of contributions (committed PRs or other activities), ranging from 3-10 — with a note from @gziolo that Gatsby automatically adds access after one.
In closing, a quote from @andraganescu, “The thing with merge access is that as long as we have the triage/review/automated testing process the only thing you need is to prove some kind of good faith I guess”
Have thoughts on the above? Please leave a comment on this post!
The agenda for the next meeting, on 15 May 2019 at 13:00 UTC, is here; please add anything that you want to discuss.
#accessibility, #core-editor, #editor, #gutenberg, #meeting-notes
