Meeting minutes
Current Status
Matt_King Our goal is Goal: 6 recommended plans by June 30
Matt_King We have 4 plans in candidate review: alert, command button, link, toggle button
Matt_King Radio test plan in draft review.
Matt_King Next up will be the Modal dialog
Matt_King Isa can you give an update on the Modal Dialog and where we are at?
Isa No more questions, we are refactoring and joining tests like we did for Radio Group, which will shorten the plan. We are looking at 10 to 11 tests
Matt_King Do you have an idea when you will be done adding the boundary tests?
Isa I'd like to review them with you next Tuesday on our call. I'm aiming to have them ready for the next CG meeting
Matt_King I think I need to move our meeting next week, I'll reach out to reschedule
Matt_King Okay so maybe by next Wednesday Modal Dialog will be ready
Matt_King Okay, awesome. And if anybody wants to look at what's going on. We do have a open poll request for refactoring the radio group and you can Just you can look at the poll request and there's a preview link in there. Its very close
Candidate Review Issue 1032
Matt_King The next topic is. Canada review issue. 1032 which we've previously discussed and it's about alert.
Matt_King I'm going to try to carefully represent what Vispero shared yesterday
Matt_King I just learned of a new ARIA issue however
Matt_King The issue is related to live regions and alert in particular and that it's unclear what browsers are supposed to be doing.
Matt_King When should the Alter event be triggered? On node creation? on Text insertion in the Dom?
James: I do just want to Raise a bit of a concern. I think Vispero has been incredibly patient throughout this and have been very willing to discuss on several occasions but I think we I think we may be getting to the point if we haven't crossed it already where this is dragging to long. I'm hoping we can make a decision about this soon
Matt_King I agree, I don't want to reduce enthusiasm for this project
Matt_King Essentially Vispero is saying that if the priority of creating the roll alert is treated by ARIA AT CG as a priority 2, that they are concerned how their stakeholders and customers will interpret this. They don't agree in this case that a SR should convey roll alert because of the history of this issue
Hadi: I Think announcing Alert is a Must, but I don't have all the history
James: To Hadi's point is that in this group we have opinions, we need to reconcile with data. Vispero in this case has data from customers that is directing them
James: Vispero is not announcing the alert based on user feedback
Matt_King Now we have evidence why people are using role alert when they shouldn't. But everyone across the ARIA world has said you must use roll alert.
Matt_King This is what came up this morning in the ARIA meeting. People want to fix this
Matt_King It was interesting to see how there wasn't complete alignment on how live regions are supposed to work. That is something that is not clear in the ARIA spec
Joe_Humbert Isn't the only difference between a generic live region and roll of alert, is that it does something with that roll?
James: yes. but practically speaking developers are finding that if they use the roll with a reasonable amount of assertiveness its not being treated that way
Joe_Humbert So its being copted because it works better with assistive technology. thank you
Matt_King So people are using role alert with what they should of been using ARIA live = assertive
Michael Can I propose we change this to a may?
Michael: I think that would make sense based on this history and what Vispero is choosing to do
Joe_Humbert If the intent originally was optional, then I agree may would be fine
James: I think that Vispero has treated this exactly as the original ARIA spec defines.
James: They are going on both user feedback and the spec, and putting the usage patterns third, which I completely agree with. I think we should change this to a may
Michael: I think this will become easier if there is more alignment, we should strengthen the assertion rather than weaken it
Matt_King Great I think this is great way forward
Joe_Humbert How then would a developer indicate to a SR user that something has this importance?
Joe_Humbert Because then there is no way to say this message is more important than another
James I think that would come with the accessibility notifications API, but thats 12 years away
Matt_King One way to differentiate importance by using other things, like an alert sound or moving focus.
James: To your point Joe, and this is Vispero's point there is no way to distinguish between importance.
James: To touch on the other solutions to convey importance that we discussed with Vispero was to play a sound or in braille a flashing dot. The issue was there isn't a way to track these things with automation, and how do we describe the sound for the tester? Especially for users without hearing. The other solution was keep it as a should,
reducing Vispero's score, but with a note explaining why Vispepro chose not to convey this roll. Vispero thought that people may not read this note, or have the expertise to understand. This provides alot of extra cognitive overhead
Matt_King We also just discussed making it a should and communicating that full support doesn't means 100 percent on the should. Because as defined in the definition of should vendors may have a reason for not doing something that is deemed a "should"
Matt_King To move forward, resolution proposal:
RESOLUTION: The assertion that AT should convey role alert will have the priority of "MAY".
Conflicts with Radio test plan
Matt_King There are 4 conflicts, I raised two issues
Matt_King First one is Issue 1052
Matt_King So some people are saying this is a moderate impact, one person saying it was a severe impact
Matt_King Murry and Isa said Moderate, Joe said severe
Matt_King So Joe what is your proposal?
Joe_Humbert I thought it was severe because the user is moving in the opposite direction that they expect. I am not tied to severe, if the group wants to change it I'm fine
Matt_King I'm curious about Isa and Murrays thoughts. My gut reaction is to say this is severe, it has a easy recovery
James: Easy on this webpage, could be more difficult other places
murray_moss I'm comfortable with severe. I thought when I pressed shift J it put me back in the group
Matt_King Yeah so this is a weird one because it only happens right after pressing test setup button, but not after that
Joe_Humbert Is it because the test setup is acting up?
Matt_King The test setup isn't doing anything unusual
Matt_King I'm not sure if this is caused by the set up script. I don't think that these set up scripts are doing anything a normal webpage wouldn't do
James Even it they didn't the setup script just puts focus on something, its not an exotic script
Isa: I marked as moderate because when I repeated it it worked
James So there is a bug in Safari or VO where the focus is being moved
Isa I'm comfortable changing it to severe
Matt_King We agree to change this to severe for tests 2 and 4
Matt_King to make this change Murray and Isa can you edit your results?
murray_moss yes
Isa yes
Matt_King Okay next issue
Matt_King In this case one of the test outputs looks like someone put the tab results into shift tab
Joe_Humbert I might have copied one wrong, I can go update that
Joe_Humbert I wrote forwards instead of backwards
Matt_King I think Murray may have made a mistake in the output
Isa I think it should be forwards
Isa How strange Murray and I made the same mistake
James hang on hang on
Isa okay for test 5, shift plus tab
Joe_Humbert While they look into that, the main issue I raised was that they announced the landmark
Joe_Humbert if that is a normal thing I can close my issue
James: I think there is a significant issue though
Matt_King I want to take a close look at this
James I think VO is the only SR I've used that announces the Landmark that you are using because you've reached the first link
Joe_Humbert I dont want to mark this as verbose if this is standard/expected behavior
Isa I want to rerun this test first
Matt_King I want to look more into this
murray_moss I just reran and it was a typo, however Joe's issue exists
Joe_Humbert okay so we agree this is a moderate issue?
Matt_King yes