<Jemma> coming from WAI meeting
<Jemma> pull request number?
<Jemma> brb
<michael_fairchild> scribe: michael_fairchild
Jon: the conflict with the menubar setup script should be resolved.
zcorpan: I resolved the conflect myself and merged
Jon_Gunderson: oh, so I didn't need to open a new PR?
zcorpan: okay, we can close #158
discussing pr #131
michael_fairchild: I'll review 131 and merge it. After merging, Jon will re-run the script to generate the tests.
discussing pr #144 - has a question for Matt
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/144
zcorpan: there are some comments for Matt here, regarding VoiceOver
Matt_King: I'll take a look at this
discussing #143 - still need to make a few more changed
Matt_King: when #143 is done, will the prototype just show 'required' and 'optional' in both the test plans and the reports?
zcorpan: I'm not sure. Maybe the reports would need to be regenerated.
Matt_King: that makes sense
... we should try that out. I wanted to reply to Brett
Lewis.
<Jemma> quick question, what does "prototype" mean in this project?
Matt_King: prototype is what we currently have running in GitHub pages.
<Jemma> is it like proof of concept?
<zcorpan> https://w3c.github.io/aria-at/ is the current prototype runner
Matt_King: yes, it is a proof of concept
Matt_King: Michael Fairchild has agreed to help with that
Matt_King: we are behind
... We are pretty close to checkbox, but still need to discuss
the grouping issue
... maybe we could create an example with a single checkbox
without a group. Save it in our repo for now, but it should be
pretty easy to get this into the APG
... that is one thing we could do to at least get the
assertions around checkboxes cleared up
... if we include groupings, it will take more time to get
consensus.
<Jemma> that sounds strategic ;-)
Matt_King: for Menubar, we have a
draft, but we haven't done a peer review yet.
... We haven't documented our findings on how Menubars work in
a native context either yet.
... I think we can have plain checkbox ready in two weeks
... next week, we can discuss menubar assertions in this
meeting
<Jemma> Matt, aren't you talking about navigation menubar, not editor menubar?
<Jemma> editor menubar has group
Matt_King: yes, but its not used as a fieldset
<Jemma> https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/examples/menubar/menubar-2/menubar-2.html
Matt_King: I don't think there will be any dispute in this context
zcorpan: for the timeline, I'm hearing that we should push it a week forward.
Matt_King: yes, I think we should
push them all out a week
... we need to prioritize the backlog for the test plans
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/projects/1
michael_fairchild: who is taking ownership of creating the single checkbox example?
Matt_King: yes, I'll take ownership of that
(previous discussion) Jemma: why are we creating a new APG issue?
Matt_King: because we need to be able to test a single checkbox, which is an example that should exist in the APG
<Matt_King> scribe: matt_king
<zcorpan> I created new issues for simple checkbox: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/1369 and https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/156
<Jemma> Thanks, Simon
mf: opened pr to use json to pass data to harness
generating a scripts.js for each test plan
This is instead of encoding all the setup scripts into the json
<Jemma> separating js file sounds like a good idea
Right now the json is part of the template, need to consider making it external
Maybe better as a separate pr.
Going to edit now to make sure that the script for generating the review files works correctly.
<Jemma> what is PR number?
Simon: I like this approach.
For the remaining pieces, should we collaborate on this?
mf: what part?
simon: The idea of using a single html file and separate json files
mf: could that be separate pr?
simon: yes
mf: That could unblock other work sooner
Simon: effects how we consume the data
mf: Will move to external file but will not change generation script
will make sure script to generate review still works correctly.
Seth: You might want to check with Val
Might not be that much to work around creating single html file
mf: If she has idea, please have her comment on the pr.
<Jemma> it is like Web Services
<Jemma> it sounds right
jg: what is mechanism for communicating which json to use?
simon: via has in url
jg: what is status of creating current html files
status of create-test.js?
mf: My pr changes that
the script is still needed, but will out json instead of html
jg: those json are not part of this pr?
mf: right
simon: we could run the script to generate the json in this pr and remove the old ones
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/149
jg: the script runs?
mf: yes, it's working
It's still generating html though; still need to change that part.
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: for anyone that has time, please review the wireframes and my comments
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: our original thinking was the two testers would run the same test, and if they disagreed, an admin would be responsible for figuring which one was correct.
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: last week, we talked about a modification to that progress, where a tester would raise an issue in the repo about the differences between those tests.
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: the group liked that approach. I spent some time thinking about that process and added some feedback to the issue.
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: after finishing each test, the system could prompt tester two to resolve differences before moving to the next test.
<michael_fairchild> isaacdurazo: I read your comments more deeply this morning. I do have one concern
<michael_fairchild> isaacdurazo: my concern is that we are now putting that responsibility into the testers, and I haven't had a chance to talk to a real tester yet. If we want to go this path, I think we should we do proper user research with testers.
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: this approach might actually be helpful for training testers
<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: please provide feedback in issue #132
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/creating a new example/creating a new APG issue/ Default Present: zcorpan, Jemma, Jon_Gunderson, isaacdurazo, michael_fairchild, s3ththompson Present: zcorpan Jemma Jon_Gunderson isaacdurazo michael_fairchild s3ththompson Found Scribe: michael_fairchild Inferring ScribeNick: michael_fairchild Found Scribe: matt_king Inferring ScribeNick: Matt_King Scribes: michael_fairchild, matt_king ScribeNicks: michael_fairchild, Matt_King WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]