18:09:49 RRSAgent has joined #aria-at 18:09:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/14-aria-at-irc 18:09:54 rrsagent, make log public 18:10:00 Zakim, start the meeting 18:10:00 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:10:02 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike 18:10:11 present+ jugglinmike 18:10:13 scribe+ jugglinmike 18:10:34 Meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly 18:10:47 Hey Matt, in case you haven't seen my email this is the correct zoom link: https://app.zoom.us/wc/86715279124/join?fromPWA=1&pwd=B0EL9Fhp4xRRfenXJ3MJNK9V0baCi7.1&_x_zm_rtaid=ag8g2tJNSTG7qXWF1e4rbA.1707931662914.cd21b3e1a9bc9a430776c60ee5648537&_x_zm_rhtaid=349 18:10:59 present+ lola 18:31:31 Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates 18:31:44 Matt_King: Next meeting: February 22 18:31:54 Topic: Automation subgroup meeting planning 18:32:48 Matt_King: Perhaps we can have two meetings each month, scheduling them to surround the monthly W3C Browser Testing and Tools meeting 18:33:35 Matt_King: That is: one monthly meeting the week before Browser Testing and Tools ("BTT and another meeting the week after BTT 18:33:51 s/BTT and/BTT") and/ 18:34:19 present+ Michael_Fairchild 18:35:09 Michael_Fairchild: or maybe we only schedule one new meeting to occur before BTT, and then use part of this meeting to follow-up on anything learned from the BTT meeting 18:35:19 Matt_King: I like that 18:35:48 Matt_King: Should we create a poll to asynchronously find a time for the meeting? 18:36:05 lola: I like that idea. I can set up the poll 18:36:28 Matt_King: Okay. Let's keep the Monday @ noon PST option as a starting point (since it's what we used in 2023) 18:36:53 Matt_King: We can rule out times that conflict with W3C meetings... 18:37:12 Matt_King: Maybe we should just use 9, 10, and 11 Monday through Thursday 18:38:22 s/and 11/11, and 12 on/ 18:38:57 Matt_King: During the first week of every month 18:39:08 lola: Sure. I can send out that poll 18:40:15 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfVL5VIGbAKe0Er0dk5FQO_jo9XCKT4bnoM5eswkj5p2jgyHw/viewform 18:44:36 Matt_King: Let's get a poll set up like that by tomorrow, with the expectation that we can open it up for responses tomorrow, share the poll at the next Community Group meeting, and share the results in two weeks' time 18:45:25 Yes 18:46:06 Topic: Deep dive into new radio test plan 18:46:11 Matt_King: I'm working on this plan 18:46:24 Matt_King: We refactored it from the old format to the new format; that was pretty automated 18:46:51 Matt_King: But because we went from having both "Reading mode" tests and "interaction mode" tests, the refactoring created some duplicates 18:47:07 Matt_King: I've been removing the duplicates and reconsidering their sequence and names 18:47:17 Matt_King: I'm also starting to wonder whether we have too many tests 18:47:31 Matt_King: I have a preview for my current work on these tests; there's a link in the agenda 18:47:49 https://deploy-preview-1015--aria-at.netlify.app/review/radiogroup-aria-activedescendant 18:47:58 Matt_King: The first question I have is about the sequencing of the tests 18:48:54 Matt_King: When I was first de-duplicating, I had organized them according to the direction of interaction (first all the tests for navigating forward, then for all the tests navigating backward, etc.) 18:50:03 Matt_King: But I started wondering if a more nuanced structure would be preferable, e.g. all the tests for navigating forward *within the group* followed by all the tests for moving backwards *into the group*, then for navigating forward *out of the group* and so on 18:50:10 present+ Joe_Humbert 18:50:33 Joe_Humbert: I don't care too much about the sequencing because there is so much setup for each test, that each one feels pretty distinct 18:50:55 Matt_King: Okay, then I guess the sequence really only matters for folks who are reading reports 18:51:16 Matt_King: The question becomes, "does the ordering feel like it's easy to consume?" 18:51:48 Matt_King: Maybe we should include that as a research question when we conduct usability testing on the report site 18:52:05 Joe_Humbert: I don't think it matters much, provided that the tests themselves are easy to understand 18:55:56 Matt_King: In the radio group (for either of the first two tests), if you tab forward into the group and none of the buttons are checked, it goes to the first button 18:56:08 Matt_King: It also goes to the first button if you tab backwards 18:56:29 Matt_King: However, if you navigate backwards into the group, then the button you go to is the third button 18:57:05 Matt_King: I waffled back and forth about how to express this as an expectation in the system 18:57:32 Matt_King: I also wondered if maybe we should simply not test what happens when you tab backwards into a radio group when none of the buttons are checked 18:58:57 Matt_King: There are three tests where you tab forward and two tests where you tab backwards 18:59:38 Matt_King: That feels sufficient to me, but there's an asymmetry there, and I'm wondering if there's value to adding another test beyond preserving symmetry 19:00:04 Joe_Humbert: I don't think there's any value without a reasonable expectation that doing so might yield different results 19:00:37 Matt_King: Well, we never know. But it does seem like it would be a very bizarre bug to get wrong output for that specific case (that is, for tabbing backward to an unchecked radio button) 19:01:04 Matt_King: I think the probability that it ever yields different output is incredibly low. That's why I'm thinking about not doing anything to resolve this 19:01:47 Matt_King: Maybe another thing to think about is: if that one thing did fail, what would the consequences be for users? It doesn't seem to me like it would be a critical failure... 19:02:23 Matt_King: Beyond that, I'm wondering if there are any missing tests or missing assertions 19:02:36 Joe_Humbert: I won't have time to review for that before next week 19:03:05 Matt_King: Well, we can do further review after this is merged. I'll keep this on the agenda for next time 19:05:42 Zakim, end the meeting 19:05:42 As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, lola, Michael_Fairchild, Joe_Humbert 19:05:44 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:05:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/14-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim 19:05:52 I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 19:05:52 Zakim has left #aria-at 19:05:53 RRSAgent, leave 19:05:53 I see no action items