<Jemma> Scribe?
<Jon_Gunderson> scribe: jongund
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Checkbox, was this about the pull request
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/145
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I have this pretty much ready to go
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I got your comments....
<zcorpan> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/149
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I have pushed commits to PR 149
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I fixed some issues, remaining issue, when you break tests than run npm start we are getting a 404 error
<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/149#issuecomment-614216617
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I think it is a configuration issue
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: There is stuff in the HTML file are in the CSV file
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: There are some blockers to moving to a single HTML for all tests
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Those references should be part of the JSON file
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We will be referencing more than the ARIA spec, we will have refs to HTML and other specs
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: There might be another base URL
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: It would be really good that when you covering a role, state or propeorty that there would be references that would convert to URLs
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Tha makes sense
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: The only other part, we still merge PR 131
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I don't have permissions to merge yet
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I will check with MC
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: There seems to be merge conflicts
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I do not see one
<Jon_Gunderson> SF: It says it cannot merge due to conflicts
<Jon_Gunderson> SF: Maybe we need to squashed
<Jon_Gunderson> SF: What is the status of this PR
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I am OK with it
<Jon_Gunderson> SF: I will merge
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Yohta thank you for working on this
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is there any thing else on 145?
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: The next step is SP will reach out to Valarie
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: We will look into the 404 error
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is everything that needs to be covered covered?
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Can we find out from Valarie if there is more that we need to do?
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I can do that
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Once 131 is merged, will the latest test, will the GitHub.io page, everything should be up-to-date
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I just merged 131
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: At this point we should be ready to review in the runner/prototype
<Jon_Gunderson> JG: I believe so
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We have two things, the simple checkbox example, maybe today or tomorrow morning
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: In order to get a test plan we can use the current checkbox plan less the grouping tests
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: The other thing is how we want to state the assertions for the grouping labels
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: After discussions with AT vendors, I think we need some re-wording
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Discussing the grouping label should be on the agenda for next week
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We could put a TODO item in checkbox issue 52
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is 52 about the group checkbox, we probably need to chenge the label
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We will have a simple checkbox, grouped checkbox and a tri-state checkbox
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Discuss assertions related to group, role and name
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I would like to talk about it next week
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: For other test plans
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Are they converted to the latest test plan
<Jon_Gunderson> JG: The test plan for menubar editor has not been reviewed by the group at all
<Jon_Gunderson> JG: PR 131 has updates to all the current tests
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We need to review all the assertions for menubar-editor
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: Issue 54 is the one for menubar
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: All you have to do is put the issue in the card
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I will do that
<Jon_Gunderson> JK: Issue 74, what is it about?
<Jon_Gunderson> JK: Jon said it could be closed
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: According to the project board we are on step 6
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: The same thing with editor menubar
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Which combobox are we testing?
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Autocomplete both
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: These do not have the level of documentation, we have written the plans, we did the research, but did not document it
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Should we concern ourselves
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I don't know, but I don't think we should due to schedule
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: What will probably do is provide feedback in the issues and that will document some of our research
<Jon_Gunderson> MF: You want me to research and documentation
<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I created an issue and assigned it to MK
<zcorpan> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/156
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: In coverting the card to an issue, create an issue and then put the issue in the card
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: DUring this week, I get the simple checkbox ready for review
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: For the existing checkbox, we can do the review asynchronously, I can start that
<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I don't thimk I will have time for menubar, but people can start to add comments
SP: I think we wanted to next
week
... May 4th to May 8th
MK: I think we can send off one
checkbox and then getting menubar/combobox
... Let's get one done, so we can share the checkbox plan by
the end of next week
... Hopefully both plans, let's try to do asynchornously
... Issue 54
xakim, next item
MK: This is a super long issue
<zcorpan> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/158
https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/158
MK: This is not a simple issue to
discuss without reading the issue
... Let's address the comments currently in the issue
... I was thinking about how to simplify the user interface for
the tester, this is my attempt to explain, using user
stories
... If you read the issue
... There are to ideas, the runner is the only place you fill
out or edit results
... If you were an admin you could open the test plans, and
change results
... How many results there are and any conflicts, status of
review and publishing
... The final idea having a quick and dirty way to find
differences between testers
... There would be feedback on differences from other testers
and what are the differences
... There would be able to copy difference information
... There would be a way to either update your results, or
raise an issue
... Simon you were asking about skill levels
... I think zero, people should be able to copy
SP: I think the bigger concern is wether that result is valid or should be discussed
MK: If you are a brand new
tester, you could send the difference information to a
mentor
... So those types of discussions should be easy
... We need to find people who have some confidence in the
tests or knowing when they migh not be
... We can compare with AT vendor results
MF: To Simons concern about
assuptions
... I hesitate a little in putting so much trust that 2 people
doing it correctly
... May it is a safe, but my experience makes that hard to
believe
MK: The testers don't have a
vested interest in just copying results
... Testers can just keep going, they don't need to check with
other people
MF: OK, people don't have to agree or raise an issue, they can just keep going
MK: The system will keep track of
all the differences, and admins can review and make decisions
on what to do
... Admins will have to run the system anyway to see what the
issue is
... The admin can have features to help them to quickly switch
between test runs
JK: I like 2 more than 1
MK: They are noth things that can happen
JK: I like the ability of the admin
MK: The big issue is if people do not understand the test plan, so I have not addressed that here
SP: If the system results to exist, we need an index page of the conflicts
MK: That would be built--in to the test cue, it is has a filter
SP: That seems good
JK: When does this need to be done?
SP: We need to have an agreement on how this should work as soon as possible
<jongund_> rrasagent, draft minutes
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/thinks/things/ Present: Matt_King zcorpan michael_fairchild jongund isaacdurazo shimizuyohta Jemma s3ththompson Joe_Humbert Found Scribe: jongund Inferring ScribeNick: jongund 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]