17:02:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
17:02:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-aria-at-irc
17:02:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:02:20 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
17:02:22 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
17:02:33 <elguerrero> present+ elguerrero
17:02:34 <jugglinmike> present+ elguerrero
17:02:49 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
17:05:34 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
17:05:46 <jugglinmike> present+ jscholes
17:09:22 <jugglinmike> present+ mfairchild
17:09:29 <jugglinmike> present+ dhamack
17:13:02 <elguerrero> Nice  to meet you all! My pronouns are she/they and I forgot to mention I work as an Accessibility Specialist Intern, pivoting from frontend development :)
17:20:24 <elguerrero> Thank you jugglinmike !
17:20:33 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
17:20:48 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/October-9%2C-2024-Agenda
17:21:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
17:21:20 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I have an update about the bots
17:21:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, let's put that near the top of the agenda
17:21:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Anything else?
17:21:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Alright, then
17:21:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next Community Group Meeting: Thursday October 17
17:22:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday November 4
17:22:32 <jugglinmike> Topic: App update
17:22:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Did the app get re-deployed this morning?
17:23:02 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: It did
17:23:15 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Now, I can assign test runners to the bot, but the results don't get recorded
17:23:20 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: The inputs are blank
17:23:48 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Noted. I'll check in with howard-e about this
17:24:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Were you able to test out to make sure that the "submit" functionality was fixed, IsaDC?
17:26:17 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Not yet, but I can run a quick test
17:26:43 <jugglinmike> Topic: Testing action menu button with activeDescendant
17:26:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're done with everything except JAWS
17:27:11 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That's assigned to Murray, and I didn't want to send them an e-mail until I verified that the bug was fixed
17:29:13 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: The "submit results" button now works as expected
17:29:30 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: There's just the bots issue
17:29:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great. If you can let Murray know that testing can continue, we can hopefully get that wrapped up and move on to "Candidate"
17:30:01 <jugglinmike> Topic: Disclosure Navigation Menu Plan Update
17:30:38 <jugglinmike> dhamack: I got a notice this morning saying that the blocking issue had been fixed. I signed in and verified. Now that that's cleared up, I can crank through the rest of the tests assigned to me
17:30:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hadi is not hear today. They are working on JAWS
17:31:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're still looking for help with NVDA
17:32:03 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Are we going to run the "navigation menu button" with NVDA manually?
17:32:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Lets see what jugglinmike finds out about automation today
17:32:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I see that the bot has made progress...
17:32:42 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: But all the responses are blank
17:33:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Do you have any guesses about when that might be resolved, jugglinmike?
17:33:36 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: I know what you folks now right now, so I'm really reluctant to make any estimates about timelines
17:33:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, well, I think it's not so bad if they're down for a few days
17:35:21 <jugglinmike> s/Disclosure Navigation Menu Plan Update/Testing navigation menu button/
17:35:32 <jugglinmike> Topic: Disclosure Navigation Menu Plan Update
17:35:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Here's the preview link: https://deploy-preview-1134--aria-at.netlify.app/review/disclosure-navigation
17:36:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I first want to talk about the first four tests
17:36:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In these tests, our primary changes. Previously, we removed a bunch of assertions about the list role and the list items
17:36:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We also had a bunch of assertions about the list boundaries when you enter a region. Those are still in here, but they're optional
17:37:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The assertions were totally removed from commands like "B" in NVDA and JAWS. NVDA does speak, though.
17:38:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If you go to the first test, if you navigate with NVDA from the link, and you navigate to the button, NVDA will tell you about the fact that you're entering the navigation region and that you're entering a list of three items
17:38:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When you navigate with "b" or "f".
17:38:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: JAWS does not
17:38:37 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That's why I removed them
17:39:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right, but my position here is that we should just be completely optional. That was it isn't called out for excessive verbosity if those three things are announced (the list boundary, the navigation region name, and the navigation region role)
17:40:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: JAWS does do this for "tab", but these assertions will always be optional for all three commands ("b", "f", and "tab")
17:40:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That was the first change I made this morning. I think making those optional is fairly non-controversial. I think we've discussed it before
17:40:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Except for when you're navigating with arrow keys--then they are all required
17:41:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The only way we'd want to remove them is if we all agreed that NVDA's speech should be considered a bug
17:41:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm not hearing any objections, so we'll move on
17:42:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Concerning test 9
17:42:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Navigating into the dropdown. I made the exact same change, but just for the list boundary (because we're not crossing the region boundary; we're only crossing the list boundary)
17:42:49 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Okay
17:43:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are two "MUST" assertions
17:43:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If you navigate with "a", it has to say that you're inside of the list, but if you navigate through "u" or "k" with JAWS (for example) then it is optional
17:43:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's also a change to 10 (the only difference is the element attribute)
17:44:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Come to think of it, we could delete one of those two
17:44:53 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I vote for removing test 9 so that the current test 10 becomes the new test 9
17:45:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, sounds good. Shorted test plans are better
17:46:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now, test 11. In this one, the change that I made was on "up arrow". We were missing the requirement to speak the list boundary on "up arrow". That was a simple omission, so I added it back in
17:46:12 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-at
17:46:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I did not make any changes to test 12
17:47:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Regarding test 13: I also added the list boundary assertion, but only for the "down arrow, down arrow" command (or equivalent)
17:48:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No changes to test 14 (dismissing)
17:48:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For test 15, you activate a link. That moves focus to a heading on the same page
17:49:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: NVDA says a lot of stuff. I don't remember what VoiceOver does. JAWS communicates the fact that the focus moves inside of a region. It tells you the name of the region, but it doesn't tell you want it landed on.
17:49:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When you activate a same-page link, it seems to me like there should be some base-level expectation that the screen reader should say something. But the question is, what MUST it say about where it landed?
17:50:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm proposing that it only MUST say the content of the thing that it lands on
17:50:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: the link target might be a heading, but I think we should be careful because the link target can be an anchor on the page which is empty. In fact, it very often is such a "nothing" element
17:51:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've asserted here that it MUST say the content of the heading, it SHOULD say the role of the heading, and it MAY say the fact that the heading is in a different region of the page (and what the name of that region is)
17:51:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's how I've changed the test. Do people agree?
17:51:59 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I agree. We didn't have those assertions before
17:52:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yes, I made them up
17:53:11 <jugglinmike> dhamack: Sounds good to me!
17:53:17 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: I am also okay with it
17:53:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So I think only one change remains, and that is deleting test 9
17:53:41 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Then we'll have to re-run the whole thing
17:54:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right. We can get this merged today and worry about assignments during next week's meeting
17:54:40 <jugglinmike> dhamack: are we just tabling disclosure for now?
17:54:59 <jugglinmike> dhamack: I had a bunch of conflicts
17:55:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we're going to have you start from scratch--sorry
17:55:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We cannot re-assign test plan runs to the bot
17:55:24 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That would be great, though
17:56:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now that we've used the bots enough and we're so in love with the bots, could we open it up to give anyone the option to run the bot?
17:56:17 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I'd have to re-assign them
17:56:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right now, that's true. I'm wondering if we can add the functionality to allow folks to run the bot and overwrite what's there
17:56:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Or even to run the bot for all the inputs on a single test
17:59:20 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: I can't speak to the implementation challenge behind that on-the-fly. Beyond that, the only potential issue that comes to mind is an increased risk of running up against usage limits in GitHub Actions (a lot of computational resources are expended simply in provisioning environments)
18:00:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ah, yes. Presumably, we could alleviate that particular concern given sufficient credits for Azure from Microsoft (potentially at the behest of mfairchild)
18:01:34 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: That could be true, but we are currently blocked on using Azure due to technical hurdles with which we've been trying to receive support from Microsoft
18:01:52 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: If you need any help resolving those, please let me know
18:02:02 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Thank you! Our plan is to do just that. We'll be in touch
18:02:18 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
18:02:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, elguerrero, Matt_King, IsaDC, jscholes, mfairchild, dhamack
18:02:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
18:02:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:02:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
18:02:34 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
18:02:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items