17:08:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
17:08:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/03-aria-at-irc
17:08:58 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, make log public
17:09:03 <jugglinmike> Zakim, start the meeting
17:09:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:09:05 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
17:09:35 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
17:09:52 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
17:09:57 <howard-e> present+
17:12:11 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
17:12:13 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
17:13:13 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
17:13:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No AT Driver meeting on Monday July 8
17:13:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No meeting Thursday July 11
17:13:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next community group meeting: Wednesday, July 17
17:14:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: How about we plan the next automation subgroup meeting for Monday July 22, and we plan to reserve a portion of this meeting on Wednesday July 17 for anything pressing?
17:14:29 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Sounds good to me!
17:14:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll create a one-off meeting and ask you to move it from the "draft" state
17:14:58 <jugglinmike> Topic:   Current status
17:15:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: 6 recommended plans by September 30.
17:15:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We'd like 4 more by December 31.
17:15:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We had a good meeting with Vispero where they recognized some bugs that we discovered here
17:15:58 <jugglinmike> Topic: Testing of Color Viewer Slider
17:16:05 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
17:16:21 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Joe will be testing tomorrow
17:16:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great! Then we'll just need Hadi's input
17:25:15 <jugglinmike> Topic: Disclosure plan draft
17:25:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC has a pull request with a draft of this test plan
17:25:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Input is welcome, though we don't have folks in attendance today who might normally take a look
17:25:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I will take a look at this soon
17:26:13 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/1083
17:26:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Public comment encouraged!
17:27:22 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Could we remove test 23, "Activate a link in a dropdown"?
17:27:31 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: that's really testing the link...
17:27:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In this case, that link is working like a same-page link, right? Isn't it moving focus?
17:29:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think this is a useful test
17:29:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the link test, we don't actually test what happens after you execute a link, do we?
17:29:36 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: No because it opens in a new window
17:30:13 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I was thinking about removing this test because I saw it first as just activating the link. But it does have an effect after the focus moves...
17:30:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yeah, it does. Focus gets set on a heading in this particular example
17:30:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It seems like a useful test. The fact that its in this particular test plan is, I guess, interesting. But the fact that it is moving focus within the same page is an implementation of this example
17:31:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if that reflects or does not reflect what actually happens in real-world websites
17:31:21 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: In that case, I suppose it's fine to keep it
17:31:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm more curious about test #22, "Dismiss a dropdown"
17:32:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The normal behavior of a disclosure is that it is not something that can be dismissed. You  just toggle it
17:32:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It feels to me like we should stick to the basics, here.
17:32:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Normally, disclosures don't close with "escape", but some people were insisting on that behavior because visually, it looks like a menu
17:33:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But because it is a disclosure, as a screen reader user, I would never think to use "escape"
17:33:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: ...because I'm not going to interpret these things as menus
17:33:21 <jugglinmike> present+ James_Scholes
17:33:58 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: My expectations kind of depend. When we recommend disclosures for navigation menus, we do suggest to clients that they collapse on "escape"
17:34:24 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: sort of a convenience to people who are not screen reader users since they don't have something like "shift+B" to back out
17:34:38 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: But realistically, I don't know how many keyboard users really expect that
17:34:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The functionality is there, and we can test it, technically
17:35:25 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: The reason why I think the test is useful is that some screen reader and browser combinations struggle with the state change under some circumstances (depending on the order of operations)
17:35:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I am actually observing exactly that kind of problem with JAWS (in similar situations, not necessarily this specific situation)
17:36:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's a valid reason to test it
17:36:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This set of tests looks pretty good!
17:37:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: With all these states and all these directions, you end up with a lot of tests. I'll give this a deeper dive before Tuesday, but overall, I think this is the right set of tests
17:37:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's certainly better than the previous set of 44 tests
17:37:31 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Thank you!
17:37:49 <jugglinmike> Topic: How reports express assertion verdicts
17:38:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Documentation of proposed changes: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1050#issuecomment-2206564252
17:38:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This started as a result of feedback from Vispero
17:39:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: They were concerned about our expression of assertion verdicts for an optional behavior--using the terms "pass" and "fail"
17:39:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wrote a definition of "assertion verdict" for the glossary
17:40:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It reads: "A judgement of whether an assistive technology exhibits the expected behavior defined by an assertion when a test that includes the assertion is performed.
17:46:24 <sasekg> sasekg has joined #aria-at
17:46:48 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That sounds good to me
17:46:55 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Me, too
17:47:26 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Technically speaking, these verdicts will still be encoded uniformly as boolean values
17:48:16 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: I'm just wondering if it will be okay for us, internally, to speak generally in terms of "passing" and "failing" verdicts, and mostly relegating this more nuanced terminology to the reports (which are the public view of the test results)
17:48:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That sounds right to me
17:49:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm really happy to have a decision here; this is great
17:50:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm going to document this in the wiki, and if there isn't an issue on the ARIA-AT App side about updating the reports (I don't think there is), then I will raise one
17:50:24 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Confirmed that there is no issue, yet
18:02:08 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
18:02:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been howard-e, jugglinmike, IsaDC, James_Scholes
18:02:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/03-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
18:02:18 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:02:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
18:02:24 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
18:02:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items