<scribe> scribe: CarlosD

Call for review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461

Wilco: there are 4 PR in Call for Review

Jean-Yves: Hidden State ends today and I'll probably merge it this afternoon

Wilco: PR 1669 and 1671 fix issues related to semantic roles, more editorial

Update from the ACT Task Force

Wilco: we are still in the process of having the designs approved
... waiting on Shawn to approve them
... we still have to decide on the rules having a table of contents
... the template includes implementation tracking tables
... and they are in a new design
... test cases' links will open in a new page
... Another update: the TF has gone through all of the rules
... in theory every rule can be moved to the WAI website
... and we started surveying again
... there are 3 rules related to the letter-spacing and text-spacing are being reviewed
... if there are no issues they will be sent to the AG

Assigned issues: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/WilcoFiers

Wilco: I haven't looked at my issues, since I've been working on the migration
... I'll pick up 1482 next
... and give 459 another pass following a recent PR related to it

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/Jym77

Jean-Yves: many of my issues have PR open, I'm moving forward

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/assigned/carlosapaduarte

Wilco: Anne has no assigned issues

<Wilco> Carlos: Haven't looked during my vacation. I have a few open PRs.

<Wilco> ... Will work on 1445 and 1446 next.

Definition of test instructions https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1679

Wilco: Aron prepared a proposal for test instructions
... any comments

Jean-Yves: Having test instructions before the test case will not be picked-up by test scripts running automated checks of the test cases
... we will end up forget about them
... and that will force us to update our tools to place the page in the required state for those specific cases

Wilco: this is not going to be on a lot of rules
... just the ones where it is essential to have some interaction before running the test

Jean-Yves: I see the need for this
... but I don't think the current proposal is scalable
... if I'm an end-user choosing tools, when I run the tool agains the test cases it will miss those cases if the end-user doesn't place the page in the required state
... but it might be good for now, since we have few test cases that need it

Wilco: we might constraint it a bit
... if we have two instructions that are the same, they should programmatically match

dmontalvo: we could have a list of instructions that we use

<dmontalvo> Carlos: I don't think this will address Jean-Yves concerns, we would still need to have some kind of metadata

Wilco: should we have regular expressions for each instruction that would allow access to the variables that need to be input?

Jean-Yves: we could link the test case to the test instructions so they could be automatically parsed
... and implementation checks could make use of the test instructions

Wilco: I will work on this with Aron
... Should we switch the order and have the description before the test instructions?

CarlosD: That makes sense to me

Jean-Yves: The description could start with something "After running the test instructions ..."

anne_thyme: The instructions should explicitly state when the test should be run
... there might be instances where the test needs to be run more than once

<dmontalvo> Carlos: Test seems ambiguous. whole process versus each of the parts

Wilco: These tests need to compare a before and after states
... should the instructions make that explicit
... or do we leave to the tester/tool knowing what are the states to compare?
... that are not many tools that can track state now, but there are some

anne_thyme: That should be covered by the applicability and the expectation because those should specify what needs to be tested

Wilco: a tester is responsible for generating the states
... WCAG doesn't tell you how to get to the different states
... what we are trying to do here is including the exploration part in the test cases in some scenarios to make sure the test case works
... we can't just assume that everyone gets that right

anne_thyme: I still think it would be nice to state when to run the test
... The wording "Test instructions" might be misleading... these are not instructions to test, they are instructions to get to the point where the test is to be executed

Jean-Yves: Perhaps use "Setup instructions"
... replace "Start the test when the window is loaded" with "Wait until the window is loaded"

Wilco: But what matters is the transition when we "click the button", so these are test instructions

anne_thyme: But when does it end?

<Wilco> "End the test when the status message is updated"

dmontalvo: But what happens when there is no aria... that's an error

Wilco: But in this case there will be error - the test case is written that way
... we're just giving instructions to trigger the message

anne_thyme: I would be more comfortable if we state what should happen in the test case, so we know when to end it

aron: This is the test description

anne_thyme: But I would like to have it also in the test instructions

Jean-Yves: I agree. We can have a test where there is a delay between clicking the button and something happening
... we need to know how long to wait

anne_thyme: Sometimes we have to wait before several resources are loaded before running the test and we have to know that

Jean-Yves: We now what is going to happen in the test case, so we can be very precise in describing it

Wilco: I propose a final bullet in the instructions with a description of what needs to happen before completing the test

"Hidden state" is not a very good name https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1660

Jean-Yves: I don't really like the name "Hidden state"
... I like Wilco's suggestion of "Programatically hidden"

dmontalvo: I agree with the suggestion

<dmontalvo> Carlos: Agree with the suggestion, can see the rationale behind,

Jean-Yves: I'll update it

Migrating to WAI-ARIA 1.2

Wilco: ARIA 1.2 is in CR
... it should be moving out of CR soon
... we should adapt to 1.2
... is there any reason for us not to move?

aron: shouldn't we do it when it's actually a recommendation?

Wilco: it's pretty close... it's safe to assume it's not going to change anymore
... and it's a lot of work to move it
... when we end up the migration effort it should be a recommendation

aron: can we have PR for that, which we merge only it becomes a recommendation

Wilco: that's a good idea

anne_thyme: will tool vendors update?

aron: I'm happy to grab a rule each week and update it to 1.2

Wilco: the required owned elements and roles have test cases that need to be updated
... and the definition of WAI-ARIA specifications that has all the ARIA specs in it

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/glossary/#wai-aria-specifications

Wilco: final thoughts

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1590

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: CarlosD, Jean-Yves, anne_thyme, aron
Present: CarlosD, Jean-Yves, anne_thyme, aron
Found Scribe: CarlosD
Inferring ScribeNick: CarlosD

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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: 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.)