Meeting minutes
Review agenda and next meeting dates
Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday August 12
jugglinmike: We will have to cancel that meeting
Matt_King: Okay
Matt_King: Next community group meeting: Wednesday August 14
Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
Michael_Fairchild: Can we discuss the possibility of doing something for (or at) CSUN?
Matt_King: Okay
Current status
Matt_King: Goal is still 6 recommended plans by September 30 and 4 more by December 31.
Matt_King: I ordered the next plans intentionally. I think Navigation Menu Button needs to happen before Action Menu Button and Radio Group
IsaDC: I think that makes sense
Matt_King: Action Menu Button is nearly identical; you might even be able to copy the files
IsaDC: Yeah, maybe just update the references
Matt_King: From there, Radio Group Using Roving Tab Index seems like an easy win for us and for the vendors
Matt_King: That will put us up to 12. Then, we'll have to talk about what to do next (though I think we might want to consider the other sliders)
IsaDC: Do we need to update the example for the navigation menu button, as well?
Matt_King: I believe so, yes--specifically around the "collapsed" state
Testing of disclosure navigation menu
Matt_King: For JAWS, we have two people assigned (IsaDC and Hadi), and it isn't started, yet
Hadi: I should be able to get started on this before the next meeting
Matt_King: We need another tester for NVDA
Joe_Humbert: I can test that
Matt_King: Cool!
IsaDC: I'm going to remove the bot and assigned Joe_Humbert
Matt_King: For VoiceOver, it looks like Dean_Hamack has already started
Dean_Hamack: I'm about halfway done (I was slowed down a bit because I originally misunderstood the instructions)
Matt_King: If anyone is assigned to multiple test plans, disclosure is definitely the priority
James_Scholes: I will follow up to make sure folks have what they need
Matt_King: What's the status of the bug or bugs in the VoiceOver Bot?
jugglinmike: We're aware of one problem--an issue with Shift+Tab as reported by IsaDC. My colleague Chris is currently investigating that
jugglinmike: If there are others, then please let us know
IsaDC: I can use the staging server to test the bot's behavior on a few other test plans and let you know
jugglinmike: Being proactive like that would be great--the sooner we know about problems, the sooner we can start working on solutions
Testing action menu button with activeDescendant
Matt_King: Murray_Moss would you mind taking on JAWS?
Murray_Moss: sure thing
Matt_King: Joe_Humbert after you're done with NVDA and Disclosure, will you have any more availability?
Joe_Humbert: Sure
Matt_King: Great; let's assign Joe_Humbert to VoiceOver
IsaDC: I'll do that and also assign the NVDA Bot
Matt_King: Then we just need an NVDA Tester
Matt_King: Any takers?
Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll check back in next week
Tools
James_Scholes: I think we should find a place for this information to live, maybe on the wiki
James_Scholes: Separately, we previously offered an add-on for speech history--that add-on is now available in the NVDA store
Matt_King: We have a section in the wiki navigation named "Running and Developing AT Tests"
James_Scholes: Is there any world in which the VoiceOver recorder app is modified to use the speech synthesizer that we're using in automation
James_Scholes: that's probably a discussion for another forum
James_Scholes: Dean_Hamack, I've sent you an e-mail with information on the VoiceOver recorder
Dean_Hamack: Thanks!
Request for change to radio test plan
github: w3c/
Matt_King: This seems like a straightforward request
Matt_King: This has come up before: Is there really a difference between "Insert + Tab" and "Insert + Up"?
Matt_King: As a result of our work here, Vispero has decided that they're going to define that difference
Matt_King: They're basically saying that "Insert + Up" should give less information, and "Insert + Tab" should give more and richer information
Matt_King: I think what they're really talking about here are the things like sliders, radio buttons, etc--anything where there is a composite with some kind of a container
Matt_King: That's my interpretation
Matt_King: They requested that we remove the assertions for things that are not name, role, value, or state
Matt_King: So that would be information like the name of the radio group (if it's a radio group) or text like "one of four"
Matt_King: My inclination is that for things that are about the immediate control (e.g. "one of four"), those probably ought to just be optional (not a should or a must)
Matt_King: ...but anything about the container, you wouldn't assert anything at all--only for "Insert + Up"
Matt_King: Only when you press "Insert + Tab" would it be optional assertion that it conveys the role of the container
Matt_King: That seems to be in alignment with what Vispero has written here; does anyone in the meeting have concerns about going in this direction?
jugglinmike: Why would we remove assertions rather than make them optional? Removing them risks insinuating to testers that those details are excessively verbose
Matt_King: IsaDC, do you think it would be a problem to keep that assertion and mark it as optional?
IsaDC: I agree with removing the assertions. Then we make sure that Testers do not feel that those assertions are mandatory
James_Scholes: but the presence of the assertions does communicate to Testers the idea that we believe some output is reasonable
James_Scholes: I think it's a good thing that Vispero is making the distinction clearer in their product
James_Scholes: I don't think that we should include a optional assertion for this case
Dean_Hamack: I'm totally with you on that, James_Scholes
Dean_Hamack: when I focus on a button, I don't need to know everything else about it
Hadi: If we keep the assertion, and the result is that they do not mention the name of the group upon pressing "Insert + Up", we are not considering that a failure, right?
James_Scholes: that's right, we are not considering that a failure because the assertion is optional