Meeting minutes
<Jem> https://
Status of Site Updates
Jemma: 2 issues.
… 2775 for Feed example. Good work Ari
Ari: Jemma comment there's a color contrast issue And the Hight of a button, touch target size I fixed this
Jemma: In TalkBack, each restaurant was read twice
Daniel: Not as serious as I was anticipating based on what you said
Matt: That sounds like a TalkBack issue
… I don't see anything obvious in the coding that suggests there is a problem with the Feed code
… I think we are safe to merge
… Are the visual design issues addressed?
Jemma: I approved the color contrast fixes
… These are done
Ari: There is a check that keeps failing that is not related to this PR
Jemma: Link checker
ARI: In the contributing page
<Jem> https://
Matt: That's weird, there is no change on that file
<Jem> Arie did great job on updating two things - color contrast and target size minimum
Matt: Last time we had a link checker failure that was on a wiki link
Matt: We fixed the wiki ones
<Jem> https://
<Jem> above is correct url.
Jemma: We need to get rid of the last references
<Jem> we need to remove https://
Ari: I don't have that contributing folder locally
Matt: You may want to merge main in to your branch
2023 retroperspective
Matt: First acknowledge the progress during 2023
… Then figure out what went well and what did not go so well
… I made a changelog for 2023 and I have it in the wiki
<Jem> https://
Matt: In that there were 61 commits that we made to the repo last year that were not infrastructure
… Big changes to examples
… Datepicker
… Changes for aria-expanded=false
… Added AT support tables last year
… We added the new contributors page
… Overall there were 11 changes to guidance
… The biggest bucket here is 202 general quality improvements
… Mainly bug fixes
… Thanks to everyone in this meeting, all of you have contributed to this plus others who are not here today
Matt: We need to talk about what did not go so well
… For a few years now we've been focused on testing changes
… So that we can move as quickly as we want on PRs
… We said we'd do some work on prioritizing better
Jemma: We can celebrate that we have new two members, Andrea and ARI, and also Cory who have been contributing to the resource. Good that we have two female developers
Ari: Glad to be part of the team, looking forward to 2024
Andrea: Cool to be working with you
Matt: What did you learn during 2023?
Andrea: I was not very familiar with these committees, different processes, documentation, releases, etc
… The nuances between changing "might" to "may" and how that works in the context of screen readers and other ATs
Ari: We've learned a lot about how important language is. Also it's great to work on these things after having visited thesse pagesas a contributor
Jemma: I appreciate your patience
Ari: Thanks for your help
Matt: I am curious about the tone of this group. How does it feel? Any ideas to make it feel better?
Cory: I feel like It is a very welcoming environment
… You all have fantastic patience for newcomers
Ari: Everyone has been very positive, and you do have to be nit-picky
Cory: Sometimes it's just taking care of the details
Matt: This work is mainly to help engineers who work on their own silos but also to help people who work for big companies
… For example, I wasn't aware of the preference for the `for` attribute for labling
Matt: I wonder if people have ideas to shorten the time it takes to move things forward
Jemma: Everyone has a fulltime job
Matt: It is improtant to explain why sometimes we cannot get to things that people comment
John: A big addition is the work of the ARIA-AT CG
… We have a human resource issue in the group
… It take some time to figure out W3C frameworks and processes
… Maybe we can do a social event to recruit more people
Matt: I think we need to make it easier for people to contribute
John: And maybe put it in the About page
Matt: It would be cool to put together a list of name
Jemma: I am glad about the idea of the handles
Defining APG bug severity framework
<Jem> w3c/
Matt: I put two questions. One is how many levels of severity we want to have. Second is what the severity factors are
… Whenever we get a bug report and is acknowledged as a bug, we label it as severe, and we prioritize based on most visited pages
… We should be able to make these severity jugments easily
… My intuition is 2 - 3 levels
Jemma: For example, how would we prioritize the bug with TalkBack with combo box?
Matt: If we have three levels of severity there is always the debate between 1 or 2, or between 2 or 3
… Two levels will simplify
Cory: I think for the amount of editorial, 3 makes sense
Daniel: +1 to Cory
Matt: Then if we have a high trafic page we can consider the moderates as highs
<jongund> got to go
Cory: P3: Editorial, P2: non-breaking functionality, P1: serious funcionality issues
Cory: I like the ambiguity of P1 - P3
Matt: Do we have consensus on P1 P2 P3?
Matt: I'd say P1 is bugs that block users
… P2 non-blocking functionality defects
… P3 bugs that are cosmetic/annoyances
Matt: I think there is consensus on the P1 - P3 measurement, we may need to tweak the wording