19:02:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
19:02:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-aria-at-irc
19:02:48 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, make log public
19:02:54 <jugglinmike> Zakim, start the meeting
19:02:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:02:56 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
19:03:03 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:03:05 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:03:25 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
19:03:53 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
19:04:20 <howard-e> present+
19:05:13 <mmoss> present+
19:05:20 <Joe_Humbert> Joe_Humbert has joined #aria-at
19:05:28 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria-at
19:05:40 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
19:06:01 <jugglinmike> present+ Joe_Humbert
19:07:11 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
19:07:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next community group meeting: Wednesday, July 31
19:07:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday August 8
19:07:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
19:07:41 <jugglinmike> present+ Boaz_Sender
19:07:54 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: I'd like to add to the agenda
19:08:03 <jugglinmike> present+ Lola_Odelola
19:08:19 <jugglinmike> Lola_Odelola: I'd like to add to the agenda, too
19:09:57 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: I'd like to talk about advanced conflict view (issue #975 in ARIA-AT App) and also about the verdict API design (issue #1084 in ARIA-AT)
19:12:16 <jugglinmike> Lola_Odelola: I'd like to talk about what's next based on feedback that was given as part of the MDN survey, "State of HTML 2023" (we're going through the responses in the Web DX community group)
19:13:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, I've added those items to the agenda
19:14:24 <jugglinmike> s/August 8/August 12/
19:14:58 <jugglinmike> Topic: Current status
19:15:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's probably going to be some changes to this pretty soon, based on yesterday's meeting with Vispero
19:15:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Currently, we have three plans approved by Vispero
19:15:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're hoping to have maybe five or six plans approved, soon
19:16:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The "slider" test plan is in review, now
19:16:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next up, we have "disclosure navigation menu" and "action menu button"
19:17:41 <jugglinmike> Topic: Testing of Color Viewer Slider
19:18:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, it looks like #1087 is closed https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1087
19:18:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Same goes for #1088 https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1088
19:18:18 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
19:18:51 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: There's also a conflict between my results and Joe_Humbert's results. That's tracked in issue 1091 https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1091
19:20:38 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I agree with IsaDC; I think we need a third person to confirm the output they get when running this specific test--the one for the "End" key
19:21:04 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I had one unexpected checked
19:21:16 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I had two checked
19:21:40 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I see two different visual indications of where the reading cursor could be
19:22:06 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: It reads the current value of the color RGB field that holds the data for the slider. What I'm seeing visually is that there are two VoiceOver cursors
19:23:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is it the case that one of those indicators is focus?
19:23:32 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I don't know; I would have to double-check. But the confusing part to me is that VoiceOver is outputting the contents of something that it is apparently not focused on
19:23:45 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Is that excessive verbosity? Or did the position of the reading cursor change?
19:24:04 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: And also, it's not reading the value of the slider
19:24:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are two ways to test where the VoiceOver cursor is. One: "Ctrl + Option + F3". The other is to press "Ctrl + Option + arrow" and just observe where it moves
19:25:56 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: If we find that the focus is still on the slider and it reports information on a different control, how should we report that?
19:26:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That would be "excess verbosity"
19:27:30 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I'll add a comment with my findings so you folks get a notification and can decide how to modify your results
19:41:46 <jugglinmike> Topic: Disclosure plan draft
19:42:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We kind of already talked about disclosure, so I think we'll skip this
19:42:07 <jugglinmike> Topic: Improving conflict resolution experience
19:42:37 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: We're coming up on being able to have the app re-run test plans in automation with new AT versions come out (or for other reasons)
19:43:26 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: So there may be conflicts with automated test plan results
19:43:35 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at-app/issues/975
19:44:48 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: the changes being proposed here are a new "/conflicts" route on the app and also changes to the test queue to add an indication that there are conflicts
19:47:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's a heading here: "Create a new test-conflicts UI" and under it, there are two items
19:48:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is a path to this, then, from the test plan or from the report?
19:48:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It reads, "Click on each test plan to open a disclosure [...]"
19:48:57 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: In the test queue, there are test plans with test plan reports in them?
19:48:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right
19:49:33 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: the proposal is to be able to click on the words that appear in the "status" column of the table (e.g. "one conflict")
19:49:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So this would turn that into a link which goes where?
19:49:53 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: To the new "/conflicts" page
19:50:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And that would list all the tests in the test plan that have a conflict?
19:50:07 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: Yes
19:50:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, so that's point #2
19:50:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And the next heading reads "When a test-plan-report has conflict(s)"
19:50:59 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: this would let you see who the conflicts are between
19:51:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right now, we have the situation where we have "report runs", but we don't surface each Tester's version of the data
19:51:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We don't currently have a "report view" for each Tester's report
19:51:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We present them in the test runner
19:52:05 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: I don't think we necessarily need a "diff" view
19:52:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We already have the summaries which are kind of like "micro-diffs"
19:52:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm trying to think of the experience, though.
19:52:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It says "add label to the test plan report", but right now, we don't have a report anywhere
19:53:08 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: Let me change that to read, "Add label to the 'status' column of the test queue"
19:53:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We already have a label there... Oh, but it doesn't say who the conflict is between
19:54:06 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think we're trying to cover the situation where three Testers are assigned and there is a conflict between two of them
19:54:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if this information is useful in the test queue
19:55:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The conflicts could be between different groups of people
19:55:08 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: Okay, I'll take that part out
19:55:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When we're counting conflicts, can one test have multiple conflicts?
19:55:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If one test can have more than one conflict, then we might want to say the number of tests in addition to the number of conflicts
19:56:06 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Yes, one test can have multiple conflicts. There could be conflicts between two different commands within a single test, for instance
19:56:31 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: then there's "Add a link from the test-plan-report to the test-plan-report version history for that test plan in the data management section"
19:56:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right now, we have the "report status" dialog. Doesn't that always show up in data management?
19:57:51 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Oh, the link is already there. I think I misinterpreted the UI. We can remove this
19:58:05 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: The last thing is, "When a test-plan-report surfaces a conflict for an  already recommend report, add it to the test que, and show that it has  conflicts"
19:59:21 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I definitely could use a better way to get to the conflicts
19:59:37 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: My workflow involves searching for the word "conflict". It isn't great
19:59:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I do the same thing!
20:01:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: One thing that would be awesome: if someone raises an issue, and it's tied to a conflict, it'd be great for that issue to be surfaced in this new "conflicts" page
20:02:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The design of that "conflicts" page could probably use a wireframe.
20:02:32 <jugglinmike> Boaz_Sender: Would it be okay if we just implemented it and used that prototype as a basis for discussion?
20:02:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Sure
20:03:25 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:03:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, howard-e, mmoss, Matt_King, Joe_Humbert, Boaz_Sender, Lola_Odelola, IsaDC
20:03:28 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:03:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
20:03:36 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:03:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
20:03:45 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
20:03:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items