IRC log of aria-at on 2024-02-28
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:03:02 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
- 18:03:07 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/28-aria-at-irc
- 18:03:13 [jugglinmike]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 18:03:20 [jugglinmike]
- Zakim, start the meeting
- 18:03:20 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 18:03:22 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
- 18:03:27 [jugglinmike]
- present+ jugglinmike
- 18:03:32 [jugglinmike]
- scribe+ jugglinmike
- 18:03:36 [murray_moss]
- present+
- 18:03:47 [Matt_King]
- Matt_King has joined #aria-at
- 18:04:16 [jugglinmike]
- Meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
- 18:04:39 [jugglinmike]
- present+ Matt_King
- 18:04:54 [jugglinmike]
- Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
- 18:05:01 [jugglinmike]
- Matt: see https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/February-28%2C-2024-Agenda
- 18:05:08 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Next meeting: March 7
- 18:05:18 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
- 18:05:31 [jugglinmike]
- s/Matt:/Matt_King:/
- 18:05:49 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll move forward with the agenda as planned
- 18:06:00 [jugglinmike]
- Topic: Automation subgroup meeting planning
- 18:06:12 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Lola ran a poll; thank you, Lola!
- 18:06:20 [jugglinmike]
- present: Lola
- 18:06:34 [Sam_Shaw]
- Sam_Shaw has joined #aria-at
- 18:07:05 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: This is for folks who are interested in automation; it's for the AT Driver spec which is now happening in collaboration with the Browser Testing and Tools W3C Working Group
- 18:07:16 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: The meeting we're considering, though, is supplemental to that
- 18:07:42 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: Monday noon PST (the time we used in 2023) seems to have the most votes
- 18:07:57 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Isn't that time inconvenient for you?
- 18:08:41 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: Yes. The second choice is at 9AM PST on Tuesday. However, I think that between jugglinmike and myself, we can accommodate the Monday morning
- 18:09:35 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: My priority with the automation subgroup meetings is that we get as much public input from people who cannot attend the BTT meeting. I don't want my presence to interfere with an otherwise-optimal time
- 18:10:09 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I don't have a strong preference between those two times. Like you, my preference is for maximizing the number of participants outside of BTT
- 18:10:31 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: There were 10 participants in this survey. Nothing came close to satisfying all 10
- 18:11:28 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: The survey did not track respondants' e-mail addresses, so apart from Sam and James, I can't tell who voted for what
- 18:11:42 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Okay, then I suppose I'm comfortable with the Monday meeting time
- 18:12:13 [howard-e]
- howard-e has joined #aria-at
- 18:12:19 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Maybe when you post the decision on the mailing list, you could offer that if folks have a strong interest in this work but could not make the meeting, then they can reach out
- 18:12:20 [howard-e]
- present+
- 18:12:33 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Just as a way to help avoid letting folks be excluded
- 18:13:22 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: Also, we have the Wednesday after this meeting is sometimes the BTT meeting, but is otherwise an additional opportunity for further public discussion
- 18:14:21 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: In other words, during this CG meeting, when it follows a BTT meeting, we will make space to discuss automation
- 18:18:52 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Perhaps we can help James_Scholes attend the BTT meetings by joining as a W3C-invited expert
- 18:18:55 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: I can look into that
- 18:19:09 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: Also, Vispero intends to attend the BTT meetings moving foward
- 18:19:14 [jugglinmike]
- s/foward/forward/
- 18:19:23 [jugglinmike]
- Topic: Command and toggle button test plans
- 18:19:38 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Thanks to IsaDC for help with issue #1031
- 18:19:56 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I also found issue #1030
- 18:20:27 [jugglinmike]
- Subtopic: Feedback: "Navigate backwards to a pressed toggle button" (Toggle Button, Test 12, V23.12.14)
- 18:20:32 [jugglinmike]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1030
- 18:20:53 [jugglinmike]
- murray_moss: "b" is a quicknav command
- 18:21:11 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: "j" is kind of like "f" in JAWS, but they're not quite equivalent
- 18:21:31 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: "f" in VoiceOver only goes to text fields, making it more like "e" in JAWS and NVDA
- 18:21:49 [jugglinmike]
- murray_moss: Wouldn't this also require a change to the instructions for how to test?
- 18:22:06 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: yes, the nice thing is that the new test format allows this succinctly
- 18:22:10 [jugglinmike]
- present+ James_Scholes
- 18:22:20 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: We're writing the instructions for the latest verison of MacOS
- 18:22:35 [jugglinmike]
- present+ IsaDC
- 18:22:59 [jugglinmike]
- IsaDC: So we are adding "b" to command and toggle button?
- 18:23:10 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Yes; I think it's relevant. I think it should work for toggle button
- 18:23:37 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: It truly is Apples choice whether they distinguish buttons and toggle buttons within quicknav
- 18:24:07 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I will assign this to IsaDC. It has a comment from me which just has a "todo" item in it
- 18:24:39 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I'll write a comment in the issue right now
- 18:25:43 [jugglinmike]
- Subtopic: To preserve as much existing manual test data as possible, waiting on deployment of new app code before advancing new test plan versions to draft review.
- 18:26:09 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I was doing some testing of the app of this feature in sandbox, and it does work, which is awesome
- 18:26:26 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: However, I found some issues that are blocking deployment to production
- 18:26:49 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Issue #738 feedback, which I see you already have two pull requests out for that one--#939 and #1016
- 18:27:00 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Do you know how much work is needed to those?
- 18:27:12 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: There is just one more approval required to land those, specifically for #939
- 18:27:28 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: My hope is that it can be reviewed by either today or tomorrow. If not, then by early next week
- 18:27:53 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: If it gets merged and goes into the sandbox by today or tomorrow, then that gives me an opportunity to verify so that we can shoot for deployment next week
- 18:28:09 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I didn't see a response about #745
- 18:28:22 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: I spoke with Paul from Bocoup who will be addressing that.
- 18:28:38 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: It's underway, and we should have an update on the work before the end of the week
- 18:28:56 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Can we set a target for being ready to deploy on Tuesday of next week?
- 18:29:03 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Both #745 and #738?
- 18:29:38 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: I think it depends on the task sequence that we have. I'd rather confirm internally and follow up
- 18:30:34 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Something I didn't test: the changes to the "button" plan will affect ONLY VoiceOver. It shouldn't effect the JAWS plans at all. I'm curious to see what happens when we merge that and we already have the JAWS reports in place for "button"...
- 18:31:49 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: So next week, if we deploy a new verison of the app, there will be a couple of JAWS tests for "toggle button" which will be incomplete. IsaDC: when we talked before, I think you said you could do "run as another user" and just fix those tests for the JAWS report.
- 18:31:53 [jugglinmike]
- IsaDC: Yes, that's right
- 18:32:24 [jugglinmike]
- Topic: Radio test plan
- 18:32:41 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: This is temporarily on hold as we try to work out a technical change to the test plan
- 18:32:52 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: howard-e has already done some amazing work along these lines
- 18:33:07 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I added some clarifying comments this morning. howard-e did those help?
- 18:33:50 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: I didn't merge the V2 enhancement with your pull request. The order seems to be correct. It sounds like, based on the feedback, there is still something that you may be seeing differently. That's confusing to me
- 18:34:13 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I merged your branch into my branch, and then I did a build of the tests. Then, the assertions came out in the wrong order
- 18:34:23 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: I'm not seeing the change I made this morning
- 18:34:31 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Oh! I didn't see that commit go out
- 18:34:38 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: That explains my confusion
- 18:35:39 [jugglinmike]
- howard-e: Regarding the additional context you provided: there are assertions that are defined in test.csv, and [scribe unable to capture technical details]
- 18:36:21 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I'll test out howard-e's work and if it looks good, I'll let you know later this afternoon
- 18:36:33 [jugglinmike]
- Topic: Assertion priority definitions
- 18:36:53 [jugglinmike]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1033
- 18:37:12 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: People have been asking, "what do MUST, SHOULD, and MAY mean?"
- 18:37:56 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I read RFC2119 which defines those terms for normative specs, and I came up with definitions for ARIA-AT
- 18:38:12 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: So I'm looking for feedback
- 18:39:02 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: In the first comment of this GitHub issue, you'll find my proposal for the definitions to place in the glossary
- 18:41:54 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: The first question: ignoring for now whether you agree with what's written here, do people understand what is written here?
- 18:42:34 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: I don't understand the final sentence of the "MAY" definition.
- 18:42:39 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: that is, "An AT which does not provide the asserted behavior MUST be prepared to interoperate with another AT that does provide the behavior, though perhaps with reduced functionality."
- 18:42:47 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: Do you have a practical example?
- 18:43:00 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I borrowed that language directly, just inserting the word "behavior"
- 18:43:36 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I was thinking about an ARIA feature like something related to digital publishing or "annotations" in the ARIA working group...
- 18:44:00 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: ... Screen readers provide a lot of different kinds of presentations of that sort of material
- 18:44:19 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I'm imagining that there might be something asserted that happens by default
- 18:45:07 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: "SHOULD" is that "we really think you should do this" but with "MAY", it's that "we think you could interoperate regardless of whether this is done"
- 18:45:41 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: When it says "must be prepared to interoperate", then the AT which doesn't exhibit the described behavior, it should exhibit some other equivalent
- 18:45:49 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: But we might want to leave that statement out
- 18:46:32 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: I expect that this is likely to come up often (particularly because it uses the word MUST), and because it requires so much explanation, it would be better to leave it out
- 18:48:02 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Let's say we hypothetically thought it was a good idea that screen readers automatically announce all assertions. We would say that they "may" do this. If a screen reader didn't do this automatically, but did do it as they entered elements, that would be satisfied...
- 18:48:23 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: ...unlike a third hypothetical screen reader which never announced insertions
- 18:48:30 [jugglinmike]
- s/all assertions/all insertions/
- 18:49:06 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: My intuition is telling me to leave that off
- 18:50:32 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: So because this is in a spec, we're talking about tests. When it comes to "MAY", it's possible that VoiceOver does something that is a "MAY", and that JAWS doesn't do that thing. To call JAWS's behavior "acceptable" sounds weird to me from an interoperability standpoint
- 18:51:32 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: We'll discuss the subsequent agenda item here in this context
- 18:51:47 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Vispero does not think the word "alert" should be spoken when an alert is announced
- 18:52:08 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: We've already demoted the relevant assertion to a "should" based on this feedback. They'd like it further demoted to a "MAY" assertion
- 18:52:28 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Given that much information and these definitions alone, what do others think?
- 18:53:03 [jugglinmike]
- present+ Hadi
- 18:53:15 [jugglinmike]
- Hadi: There are a lot of visual elements which speak for themselves.
- 18:53:53 [jugglinmike]
- Hadi: When we, as screen reader users, we don't have the visual cues. I am for the idea to have the role of "alert" spoken aloud
- 18:54:07 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: That's a perfect explanation for the original motivation back in 2010
- 18:54:53 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Here's what's happened since 2010. Many chat apps right now use alert. On every single message, you hear "alert" as a prefix constantly
- 18:55:21 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: As a result, it no longer serves the "attention grabbing" purpose it was originally designed to serve
- 18:56:03 [jugglinmike]
- Hadi: Perhaps within a web application. But when an alert comes up in the context of another application, that's a different story
- 18:56:30 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Agreed. Vispero can't fix that, but Microsoft is working on a technical solution to this. It will be available in a year or two
- 18:56:50 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: Vispero's argument right now is that in the current state of the world, "alert" is kind of meaningless
- 18:57:17 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: I am inclined to push back a bit. I'm not married to this perspective, but it sounds like we are adapting our tooling to match tooling which is not accessible in the first instance
- 18:57:35 [jugglinmike]
- Lola: If a web developer misuses alert, that's not accessible. It seems strange to me to change our tests to match that
- 18:57:56 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I very much agree. That's where we fall almost all of the time. It's just that this is a strange case: if you're a developer, you have no other choice
- 18:58:09 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: This is why the APG has not written guidance for live regions
- 18:58:29 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: If you want live regions to work across browsers and ATs, you have to use alert
- 18:58:51 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: If you're targeting only certain user-agents, then sometimes you can make live regions work without alert
- 19:00:10 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: I am sympathetic to Vispero's comments, but it's kind of a multi-pronged issue. As a user, their stance makes sense to me. As an accessibility professional, this is less the case.
- 19:01:30 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: "aria live" still doesn't work after 14 years. At some point, you have to say "enough is enough". The same goes for "role=status".
- 19:01:55 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: If something has not worked well for a decade, my sympathy for the people who should be implementing somewhat dips
- 19:02:10 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: But this isn't something Vispero can fix. The problem is on the browser side
- 19:02:20 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: Good point
- 19:02:50 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: But of course, Vispero's feedback is valid and based on authentic real-world experience
- 19:03:29 [jugglinmike]
- James_Scholes: I'm really torn, to be honest. One of the points that's made here in this issue is about users possessing certain skill levels. I really think that's an issue here. For a novice user, knowing the difference between an alert and a focus change, I think is key.
- 19:03:52 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: We're out of time for the day, but we didn't get to hear from everybody.
- 19:05:48 [jugglinmike]
- Matt_King: I encourage folks here to comment on the definitions (aria-at #1033), and you can also comment on this specific example there
- 19:07:24 [jugglinmike]
- Zakim, end the meeting
- 19:07:24 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Lola, howard-e, James_Scholes, IsaDC, Hadi
- 19:07:26 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 19:07:28 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/28-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
- 19:07:35 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 19:07:35 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #aria-at
- 19:07:38 [jugglinmike]
- RRSAgent, leave
- 19:07:38 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items