<Jemma> coming from WAI meeting

<Jemma> pull request number?

<Jemma> brb

<michael_fairchild> scribe: michael_fairchild

Open Pull requests

Jon: the conflict with the menubar setup script should be resolved.

zcorpan: I resolved the conflect myself and merged

Jon_Gunderson: oh, so I didn't need to open a new PR?

zcorpan: okay, we can close #158

discussing pr #131

michael_fairchild: I'll review 131 and merge it. After merging, Jon will re-run the script to generate the tests.

discussing pr #144 - has a question for Matt

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/144

zcorpan: there are some comments for Matt here, regarding VoiceOver

Matt_King: I'll take a look at this

discussing #143 - still need to make a few more changed

Matt_King: when #143 is done, will the prototype just show 'required' and 'optional' in both the test plans and the reports?

zcorpan: I'm not sure. Maybe the reports would need to be regenerated.

Matt_King: that makes sense
... we should try that out. I wanted to reply to Brett Lewis.

<Jemma> quick question, what does "prototype" mean in this project?

Matt_King: prototype is what we currently have running in GitHub pages.

<Jemma> is it like proof of concept?

<zcorpan> https://w3c.github.io/aria-at/ is the current prototype runner

Matt_King: yes, it is a proof of concept

Protected branch commit permission

Matt_King: Michael Fairchild has agreed to help with that

Schedule for test plan development issue 42

<zcorpan> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/Test-Authorship-and-Test-Runner-Development-Plan#work-stream-22-write-tests-and-run-pilot-before-end-of-development-phase

Matt_King: we are behind
... We are pretty close to checkbox, but still need to discuss the grouping issue
... maybe we could create an example with a single checkbox without a group. Save it in our repo for now, but it should be pretty easy to get this into the APG
... that is one thing we could do to at least get the assertions around checkboxes cleared up
... if we include groupings, it will take more time to get consensus.

<Jemma> that sounds strategic ;-)

Matt_King: for Menubar, we have a draft, but we haven't done a peer review yet.
... We haven't documented our findings on how Menubars work in a native context either yet.
... I think we can have plain checkbox ready in two weeks
... next week, we can discuss menubar assertions in this meeting

<Jemma> Matt, aren't you talking about navigation menubar, not editor menubar?

<Jemma> editor menubar has group

Matt_King: yes, but its not used as a fieldset

<Jemma> https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/examples/menubar/menubar-2/menubar-2.html

Matt_King: I don't think there will be any dispute in this context

zcorpan: for the timeline, I'm hearing that we should push it a week forward.

Matt_King: yes, I think we should push them all out a week
... we need to prioritize the backlog for the test plans

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/projects/1

michael_fairchild: who is taking ownership of creating the single checkbox example?

Matt_King: yes, I'll take ownership of that

Test refactor issue 145

(previous discussion) Jemma: why are we creating a new APG issue?

Matt_King: because we need to be able to test a single checkbox, which is an example that should exist in the APG

<Matt_King> scribe: matt_king

<zcorpan> I created new issues for simple checkbox: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/1369 and https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/156

<Jemma> Thanks, Simon

mf: opened pr to use json to pass data to harness

generating a scripts.js for each test plan

This is instead of encoding all the setup scripts into the json

<Jemma> separating js file sounds like a good idea

Right now the json is part of the template, need to consider making it external

Maybe better as a separate pr.

Going to edit now to make sure that the script for generating the review files works correctly.

<Jemma> what is PR number?

Simon: I like this approach.

For the remaining pieces, should we collaborate on this?

mf: what part?

simon: The idea of using a single html file and separate json files

mf: could that be separate pr?

simon: yes

mf: That could unblock other work sooner

Simon: effects how we consume the data

mf: Will move to external file but will not change generation script

will make sure script to generate review still works correctly.

Seth: You might want to check with Val

Might not be that much to work around creating single html file

mf: If she has idea, please have her comment on the pr.

<Jemma> it is like Web Services

<Jemma> it sounds right

jg: what is mechanism for communicating which json to use?

simon: via has in url

jg: what is status of creating current html files

status of create-test.js?

mf: My pr changes that

the script is still needed, but will out json instead of html

jg: those json are not part of this pr?

mf: right

simon: we could run the script to generate the json in this pr and remove the old ones

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/pull/149

jg: the script runs?

mf: yes, it's working

It's still generating html though; still need to change that part.

Resolving conflicts in test results issue 132

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: for anyone that has time, please review the wireframes and my comments

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: our original thinking was the two testers would run the same test, and if they disagreed, an admin would be responsible for figuring which one was correct.

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: last week, we talked about a modification to that progress, where a tester would raise an issue in the repo about the differences between those tests.

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: the group liked that approach. I spent some time thinking about that process and added some feedback to the issue.

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: after finishing each test, the system could prompt tester two to resolve differences before moving to the next test.

<michael_fairchild> isaacdurazo: I read your comments more deeply this morning. I do have one concern

<michael_fairchild> isaacdurazo: my concern is that we are now putting that responsibility into the testers, and I haven't had a chance to talk to a real tester yet. If we want to go this path, I think we should we do proper user research with testers.

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: this approach might actually be helpful for training testers

<michael_fairchild> Matt_King: please provide feedback in issue #132

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/creating a new example/creating a new APG issue/
Default Present: zcorpan, Jemma, Jon_Gunderson, isaacdurazo, michael_fairchild, s3ththompson
Present: zcorpan Jemma Jon_Gunderson isaacdurazo michael_fairchild s3ththompson
Found Scribe: michael_fairchild
Inferring ScribeNick: michael_fairchild
Found Scribe: matt_king
Inferring ScribeNick: Matt_King
Scribes: michael_fairchild, matt_king
ScribeNicks: michael_fairchild, Matt_King

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)