W3C

– DRAFT –
ARIA and Assistive Technology Community Group

14 January 2021

Attendees

Present
James, Jemma, JoeHumbert, jongund, Matt_King, michael_fairchild, rob-fentress, s3ththompson, Sina
Regrets
-
Chair
Matt King
Scribe
s3ththompson

Meeting minutes

preset+

Meeting Planning

Matt_King: how do we best organize sub-meetings for various different types of projects?

michael_fairchild: we had separate meetings at the end of last year for the AT Automation work...

Matt_King: could we make our App Development a public CG sub-meeting?

s3ththompson: potentially, although our current App Development meeting with you is 50% client contractor check-in, 50% general interest... do we want to split that into 2 meetings, a public one and an ongoing Facebook/Bocoup one?

Matt_King: hmm, let's discuss at project kickoff

Matt_King: it seems like Test Writing, getting consensus around test format, etc. would be another topic area. Should the cadence change too?

Sina: yes, we could do a separate (weekly) Test Writing meeting... although it would be great too to have a monthly combined meeting of all of the sub-meetings

James: yes, and if we made this meeting the Test Writing meeting and it changed to weekly, we would feel more comfortable using up the available time in any one meeting

Matt_King: if this is the primary meeting that most CG group members attend, maybe there's a cadence where at the end of the month every sub-group reports... if someone has passing interest in multiple topics they could just come to this end of the month meeting

Matt_King: great, seems like there's consensus there... Sina, James, do you also want to take over running the meetings?

Sina: we would be happy to do that. It would be great to give priority to test writing for some of the weekly meetings

Matt_King: let's start that next week

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Meetings

s3ththompson: would be great to signal whether a meeting is a wrap-up, combined meeting in the invite for people who maybe weren't here to hear this new schedule / organization

<Jemma> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/January-12%2C-2020-Agenda

Matt_King: let's move to using a wiki format like we do in aria-practices to record Meetings and Meeting Agendas

Matt_King: jongund, Jemma, do you like this format? is this worth replicating?

jongund: what is the process for developing examples?

Sina: it would be great if there was consistency to the formats

Matt_King: we can coordinate agenda publication... for the next two weeks we can kind of play it by ear

Sina: and last meeting of the month is crossroads meeting?

Matt_King: yes. jan 28 would be crossroads

s3ththompson: anecdotally, this would be great. more Bocoup folks would likely attend the crossroads monthly meeting

michael_fairchild: so just to enumerate meetings... there's Automation (weekly, when active, run by michael_fairchild), Test Writing (weekly, first 3 weeks per month, run by James or Sina), and App Development (weekly, when active, run by s3ththompson)

Matt_King: and then Crossroads Combined meeting (monthly, run by Matt_King) which will give updates for all of the workstreams. the other meetings are optional and of interest only to certain people

Sina: it would be great if all meetings used same format... (probably this wiki format we'll test)

michael_fairchild: can we standardize on Zoom?

s3ththompson: will have to check with Bocoup, but I like the idea

Matt_King: i will set up wiki format and share with others

michael_fairchild: who will do meeting invites?

Sina: can we automate? maybe with GitHub action? i can take a look

Sina: which zoom do we use?

michael_fairchild: i'm comfortable use deque...

Sina: okay, can you do next week and then we'll take over after that

Test Writing Update

James, Sina: we've made a lot of progress

Sina: we've only gotten comments from Matt_King... I want to figure out more sustainable way to get reviews from others and merge more quickly

James: we went back over all 6 new examples.... still need to get them merged... still need to reconcile them with the latest Bocoup changes which assume certain file structure, etc. for GitHub actions

James: moving on to next patterns on our list... Date Picker Combobox example... maybe a good candidate for our new "atomic test units"? by design, we'd like to be able to assemble module components to reuse asserts from, say, Combobox, for Date Picker Combobox

James: by end of the day we will publish two pull requests for Actions Menu Button examples... almost everything is the same, except for technique behind the scenes for managing focus, etc.

jongund: how do we review this? look at excel sheets

Sina: if you go to PR there is now a human-readable preview

James: if you want to read our human-readable plan you can go into GitHub issues

James: take a look at "Preview Test Link" on, say, modal dialog PR

James: and associated issue is linked in the PR

James: but you can comment on either issue or PR to provide feedback

jongund: how should i get started if i want to review one this week? how do i choose? can you assign people?

James: you can assign yourself. but yes, we could use help on Dialog

Working Mode Update

Matt_King: we've been discussing the issue a little here... we'd like to merge the test writing more quickly... how do we design a process to facilitate this?

Matt_King: the best way for us to review tests is to run them... we want to use ARIA-AT app to accomplish this

michael_fairchild: i'd like to make the bar for merging low... like it doesn't break the build

James: is there a way for CG to see that there are tests ready for testing? without going through being assigned to a test cycle, etc.

s3ththompson: how do we kick the tires though? are those in the test queue with everything else? how do we fix the issue where we have a test in the test queue currently with "DO NOT TEST" in the title?

James: there's an issue about this. i think we need a flag that signals when something is ready for production testing

jongund: i feel strongly that it's takes time, effort, and thought for volunteers to try to pick the right thing to test.... it doesn't work to just say anyone can test anything

Matt_King: we can send out email blasts to try to proactively engage people

jongund: i endorse that. people will respond better to that than just throwing something over the wall and saying people will volunteer on their own

Matt_King: it sounds like we almost need a program manager for this

Matt_King: i can write up this role, what the responsibilities are, and how to engage with community

Matt_King: it sounds like the bar for merging should be relatively low

Matt_King: it sounds like we need a status

s3ththompson: want to make sure we think about high-level UX, but yes we could add new status

James: i think we need to clarify the bar. we were 98% complete before we opened PR...

James: i think things should stay as draft PR until certain threshold is met

Matt_King: okay, sounds like we need to have a followup conversation. James' issue is great. we might just need to update the wiki based on that

Matt_King: maybe we'll make progress in issue or we can add to next meeting agenda

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).