Meeting minutes
<jongund> prsent+ jongund
<jongund> https://
<jongund> https://
<jongund> https://
Role announcement consistency
sina: example is tablist
JAWS and NVDA announce the role differently.
Do we take a position on that?
Should we enforce consistency?
Or, is the role somehow indicated, generically?
mk: That's reason we use word conveyed
Sina: consider combobox
Mac is different because it announces combobx as popup buttion
Westin: true for html select but if you use role combobox, Mac will say combobox
Sina: need to be specific about browser, Chrome, Sina thinks it does not say combobox
mk: Describe my position about Mac, which select only combobox can be announced in way cionsistent with native, which is popup button variant.
mk: We can convey the essence of the role, or the nature, but the exact word is not necessary.
Sina: +1 to that
mk: There could be roles where we don't want the screen reader to just spit out the aria role name
jg: How is important that reading mode and forms mode are consistent?
Sina: Think they can be different
Sina: They might flatten in in forms mode
In a tablist, they might not want to say the entire role name
jg: Jon, when testing, I observed some differences where group was used instead of the actual continer name
Sina: Should we take a position on whether the words used in reading and interaction mode should always be the same?
In other words, a test would fail if it said tabs in ineraction mode but tablist in reading mode
mk: I support that
jg: what if it said group in vc mode and tabs in interaction mode
WSina: I think that would be a fail
This topic is discussed in issue 366:
https://
mk: on example of table, it must distinguish static table from interactive table
oops, meant that to be about grid, distinguish grid from static table
Sina: How do we convey this concept to testers?
mk: I think we need a table of screen reader role translations
mk: This could be a table of exceptions, where screen readers do not precisely announce what is in ARIA
Sina: must be versioned
No idea what this means for internationalization
jg: What happens when people are comparing results
Sina: that is part of the process
jg: This is adding complexity
Sina: is it avoidable?
jg: Do we need this nuance at this level?
Do we rely o the community to flush this out.
What if users, lots of users agree that table is just fine instead of grid
Sina: Just because users think a bug is OK, that doesn't make it ok
Sina: There is a certain clas of things that it is essential that we convey the exact nature of things
jg: Should assertion be "conveys the interactive nature of grid"?
mk: That means we would have to change all the assertions to explain the meaning of roles
Sina: What if we added notes to tricky assertions
Sina: major takeaway, from test writing perspective, we don't change assertion language.
But, we do need to figure out how to create this exception dictionary
We would need to figure out how to roll it into the app, maybe another csv file
jg: It could be another note in the list
in the test runner
Sina: yes
A test writer would update this spreadsheet when coming across an exception.
Should be siome consensus rules around that.