19:02:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
19:02:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/21-aria-at-irc
19:02:23 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, make log public
19:02:35 <jugglinmike> Zakim, start the meeting
19:02:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:02:36 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
19:03:08 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:03:14 <jugglinmike> present+ howard-e
19:03:19 <jugglinmike> present+ James_Scholes
19:03:34 <jugglinmike> present+ Alyssa_Gourley
19:03:57 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
19:03:59 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
19:04:10 <howard-e> present+
19:04:21 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:04:56 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
19:05:31 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
19:06:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next meeting: Wednesday March 27
19:06:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
19:06:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: hearing none, we'll move forward as planned
19:06:59 <jugglinmike> Topic: Upcoming app fix patch
19:07:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've asked the Bocoup team to prioritize two bugs to fix with rapid patches
19:07:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Issue 973: Candidate review start date is errantly reset when a test plan advances to candidate
19:08:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Issue 799: Cannot view reports for draft test plans
19:08:51 <jugglinmike> howard-e: We have patches for both of these and they will be available for review on the "staging" server after the call
19:09:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll try to review before Monday, so that hopefully we can merge and deploy on Monday
19:09:19 <jugglinmike> Topic: Toggle button test plan next step
19:09:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're waiting on some work from a few people, including Hadi and myself
19:09:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I hope to get to my part this weekend
19:10:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: James_Scholes would you like to run this as Hadi or wait for Hadi's return
19:10:26 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Isa is out of the office this week, but we expect her to return some time next week
19:10:49 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: If she returns before Hadi is able to share results, then we can ask Isa
19:11:14 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: I'm also available to complete Hadi's work if necessary
19:11:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm not sure if we can re-assign it to you, but we can look into it if necessary
19:11:52 <jugglinmike> Topic: Command button test plan next step
19:12:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm looking at "report status dialog" for command button, and the app says that there are no reports
19:12:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I seem to recall that howard-e was going to manually manipulate the data so that we wouldn't have to re-run this plan
19:13:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It doesn't seem like it would be complicated to get the results from the prior version into the current version because the two differ so slightly
19:13:19 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I did volunteer to perform that operation. I can do that today, as well, after this call
19:13:42 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I've also been working on enhancing the "copy results" functionality
19:14:07 <jugglinmike> howard-e: It's issue #935. That includes a checklist, and the final item in the checklist concerns exactly this situation
19:14:36 <jugglinmike> howard-e: All that to say: I hope this process is easier in the future, but in the short term, I'll be performing that task manually later today
19:15:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great! Soon, we will have many plans in Candidate Review [lists specific plans]. That's exactly where I want to be when I meet with Apple
19:15:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I would love to get a 30 minute meeting with Apple by the end of the month
19:15:57 <jugglinmike> s/lists specific test plans/Button, Link, Toggle, and Alert/
19:16:09 <jugglinmike> Topic: Radio test plan
19:16:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I thought this was ready to advance until just last week, when we recieved a question in APG
19:16:43 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/2954
19:17:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: [summarizes the issue]
19:17:48 <jugglinmike> s/lists specific plans/Button, Link, Toggle, and Alert/
19:18:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We can be proactive here and just remove "Enter" key testing
19:18:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then, when APG updates, nothing about the test plan will need to change
19:18:37 <jugglinmike> present+ Michael_Fairchild
19:18:43 <jugglinmike> Michael_Fairchild: That sounds like a fine course of action to me
19:20:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'd like the Test Plan to be run by the second week of April
19:20:44 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: I can do that in time. I don't have a Mac, though
19:20:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If you could do JAWS and Chrome, that would be great
19:21:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We can use the NVDA Bot to gather the output, then we can assign it to you, and you would just be assigning verdicts
19:21:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I encourage you to do some validation of the AT responses reported by the bot
19:22:07 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: That sounds so much better
19:23:47 <Matt_King> V24.03.13 of radio test plan: https://aria-at.w3.org/test-review/75322
19:24:56 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: This test plan doesn't have an "Enter" command
19:25:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It looks like you're right--cool! That means we're already good to go
19:25:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we can just add this to the Test Queue right now and assign Alyssa_Gourley
19:26:37 <jugglinmike> s/Queue right/Queue for JAWS right/
19:27:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And I just assigned the NVDA Bot to run it for NVDA
19:30:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It looks like there's some kind of component problem in the "assign tester" menu. Instead of using "aria-checked" on the checkbox, it declares the state as part of its name
19:31:06 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I'll make an issue for this later
19:31:18 <jugglinmike> Topic: Proposal to change terminology used for undesirable behaviors
19:31:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: GitHub issue Proposal for new terminology for the phenomena we currently call "undesirable behaviors" or "Other behaviors with negative impact" · Issue #1043
19:31:50 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1043
19:32:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have wording for additional behaviors which are undesirable: "Other behaviors that create severe negative-impacts are not exhibited" and "Other behaviors that create moderate negative-impacts are not exhibited"
19:32:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's been a little bit of confusion over the fact that we say "Other behaviors"
19:33:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That has to be interpreted in the context of the behaviors that we assert
19:33:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I was thinking that we might be able to make these statements more clear
19:33:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We might switch from "negative impacts" to "negative side-effects"
19:34:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I looked through the list of things that we currently classify as "negative impacts", and to me, it sounds like they could all be called "negative side-effects"
19:34:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then the assertions would read, "Severe negative side-effects do not occur", or "Moderate negative side-effects do not occur"
19:34:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Do other folks feel like this would be an improvement?
19:34:44 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: It works for me
19:35:22 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: That would be clear to me, too.
19:36:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm thinking about when we put this in the reports. For someone who isn't familiar with the testing, when they see "severe negative side-effects did not occur" or "moderate negative side effects did not occur", and those both pass. It seems like that would be clear to me
19:36:51 <jugglinmike> Michael_Fairchild: That sounds like it makes sense. I'm a little concerned about complexity, but I don't have a better solution
19:37:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: To be clear, we already have all of this implemented, I'm just talking about changing the wording
19:38:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll take the next action on this
19:38:11 <jugglinmike> Topic: Assertion priority for alert role
19:39:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I took the language that we previously discussed for the definitions of MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, and I inserted those definitions into the project's glossary
19:39:57 <Matt_King> New glossary definition of must should and may: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/Glossary#assertion-priority
19:41:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does anyone have any objections to closing this issue and thereby formalize the definitions of the assertion priorities?
19:41:12 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: Not from me
19:41:43 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I support this
19:43:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, great
19:43:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Relatedly, we've been talking about the Alert pattern--specifically whether conveying the concept of "alert" should be a "MAY" assertion or a "SHOULD" assertion
19:44:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the ARIA specification, the Alert role is intended to capture peoples' attention in some way that is distinct from other assistive technology responses
19:45:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We don't test that the "alert" interrupts other prior speech. I don't know if we should or even could do that
19:46:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think that's separate from the role, though; I think that's testing the property "aria-live" (the value "assertive")
19:46:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In that case, we wouldn't be testing specifically the alerted value, but rather how the value is conveyed
19:47:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's a camp that believes that we should stay true to the spec even though that in the wild, the role has been so misused that it has lost its original meaning
19:48:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: On the other hand, there are folks who believe that the reality is more important than the theoretical language of the specification, and that asserting the latter doesn't actually help anyone
19:49:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For this meeting, I'm not looking for a final decision that may never change, but I would like to come to a conclusion that represents this group's stance today
19:51:11 <jugglinmike> Michael_Fairchild: Could we consider an interruption as the indication that this is an alert?
19:52:22 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: That alone could be confusing because in some contexts, it wouldn't be clear if an alert occurred--the interruption could seem like the literal text on the page
19:53:55 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: Could it be a thing were in the verbosity settings, somehow, if users have the verbosity set to "beginner" or "intermediate", then it says "Alert" every time. Otherwise, it does not
19:54:42 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think that Vispero would have it on by default and expect advanced users to turn it off
19:54:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We didn't get a firm word from Vispero about whether or not this totally blocks them
19:55:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We didn't discuss whether we give vendors an opportunity to communicate why they intentionally chose to fail a "should" assertion
19:57:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Vispero was strongly advocating for using "pass" and "fail" to discuss "should" assertions
19:58:27 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I don't disagree with Vispero's user-oriented answer (rather than a more ARIA-focused answer). I mostly want to move forward on this
20:02:38 <jugglinmike> [continued discussion of the intricacies of the issue]
20:02:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm still not hearing consensus here
20:03:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If Vispero was adamanet that this be made a "MAY" assertion, would anyone strongly object to that?
20:03:26 <jugglinmike> Michael_Fairchild: No
20:03:33 <jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: No
20:05:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I will continue speaking with Vispero on this topic
20:06:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks to Michael_Fairchild (and folks at Microsoft) for securing compute time on Microsoft Azure for our use in automation!
20:11:01 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:11:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, howard-e, James_Scholes, Alyssa_Gourley, Matt_King, Michael_Fairchild
20:11:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:11:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/21-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
20:11:11 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:11:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
20:11:13 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
20:11:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items