Meeting minutes
Review agenda and next meeting dates
Matt_King: Next community group meeting: Wednesday, July 31
Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday August 12
Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
Boaz_Sender: I'd like to add to the agenda
Lola_Odelola: I'd like to add to the agenda, too
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)
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)
Matt_King: Okay, I've added those items to the agenda
Current status
Matt_King: There's probably going to be some changes to this pretty soon, based on yesterday's meeting with Vispero
Matt_King: Currently, we have three plans approved by Vispero
Matt_King: We're hoping to have maybe five or six plans approved, soon
Matt_King: The "slider" test plan is in review, now
Matt_King: Next up, we have "disclosure navigation menu" and "action menu button"
Testing of Color Viewer Slider
Matt_King: Okay, it looks like #1087 is closed w3c/
Matt_King: Same goes for #1088 w3c/
IsaDC: There's also a conflict between my results and Joe_Humbert's results. That's tracked in issue 1091 w3c/
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
Joe_Humbert: I had one unexpected checked
IsaDC: I had two checked
Joe_Humbert: I see two different visual indications of where the reading cursor could be
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
Matt_King: Is it the case that one of those indicators is focus?
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
Joe_Humbert: Is that excessive verbosity? Or did the position of the reading cursor change?
Joe_Humbert: And also, it's not reading the value of the slider
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
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?
Matt_King: That would be "excess verbosity"
mmoss: I'll add a comment with my findings so you folks get a notification and can decide how to modify your results
Disclosure plan draft
Matt_King: We kind of already talked about disclosure, so I think we'll skip this
Improving conflict resolution experience
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)
Boaz_Sender: So there may be conflicts with automated test plan results
github: w3c/
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
Matt_King: There's a heading here: "Create a new test-conflicts UI" and under it, there are two items
Matt_King: Is a path to this, then, from the test plan or from the report?
Matt_King: It reads, "Click on each test plan to open a disclosure [...]"
Boaz_Sender: In the test queue, there are test plans with test plan reports in them?
Matt_King: Right
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")
Matt_King: So this would turn that into a link which goes where?
Boaz_Sender: To the new "/conflicts" page
Matt_King: And that would list all the tests in the test plan that have a conflict?
Boaz_Sender: Yes
Matt_King: Okay, so that's point #2
Matt_King: And the next heading reads "When a test-plan-report has conflict(s)"
Boaz_Sender: this would let you see who the conflicts are between
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
Matt_King: We don't currently have a "report view" for each Tester's report
Matt_King: We present them in the test runner
Boaz_Sender: I don't think we necessarily need a "diff" view
Matt_King: We already have the summaries which are kind of like "micro-diffs"
Matt_King: I'm trying to think of the experience, though.
Matt_King: It says "add label to the test plan report", but right now, we don't have a report anywhere
Boaz_Sender: Let me change that to read, "Add label to the 'status' column of the test queue"
Matt_King: We already have a label there... Oh, but it doesn't say who the conflict is between
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
Matt_King: I don't know if this information is useful in the test queue
Matt_King: The conflicts could be between different groups of people
Boaz_Sender: Okay, I'll take that part out
Matt_King: When we're counting conflicts, can one test have multiple conflicts?
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
howard-e: Yes, one test can have multiple conflicts. There could be conflicts between two different commands within a single test, for instance
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"
Matt_King: Right now, we have the "report status" dialog. Doesn't that always show up in data management?
howard-e: Oh, the link is already there. I think I misinterpreted the UI. We can remove this
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"
IsaDC: I definitely could use a better way to get to the conflicts
IsaDC: My workflow involves searching for the word "conflict". It isn't great
Matt_King: I do the same thing!
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
Matt_King: The design of that "conflicts" page could probably use a wireframe.
Boaz_Sender: Would it be okay if we just implemented it and used that prototype as a basis for discussion?
Matt_King: Sure