20:02:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
20:02:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/06-aria-at-irc
20:02:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
20:02:38 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Matt_King
20:03:15 <Matt_King> MEETING: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group
20:04:41 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
20:05:29 <Joe_Humbert> present+
20:08:04 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-at
20:08:33 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
20:08:36 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
20:08:40 <Matt_King> present+
20:08:40 <howard-e> present+
20:09:00 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
20:09:05 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/February-6%2C-2025-Agenda
20:09:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday February 10
20:09:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next Community Group Meeting: Wednesday February 12
20:09:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
20:09:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll move forward as planned
20:09:43 <jugglinmike> Topic: Current status
20:11:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC is working on a spreadsheet that will help us figure out a schedule for draft review and candidate review of the revised test plans
20:11:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: With that, we'll be able to set some targets for around June
20:12:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've been trying to get the revised versions of both radio group test plans into the test plans. They are so close, but there are so many details
20:12:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It feels like really really on the verge of getting these two test plans into the test queue
20:13:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Despite all the delays here, I'm feeling very confidence that they will be ready in time for next week's meeting
20:13:22 <jugglinmike> Topic: Testing status
20:13:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't see any testing conflicts on any of the three things that are actively being worked on. We can talk about each on in turn
20:14:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The first one in the queue is Disclosure
20:14:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have IsaDC, Joe_Humbert, and mmoss all assigned to this
20:14:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It looks like Joe_Humbert is done
20:14:58 <jugglinmike> present+ Joe_Humbert
20:15:08 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I assigned myself over the weekend because I had the time
20:15:19 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
20:15:24 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That's awesome, thank you!
20:15:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we may want to rely on mmoss in this case and save some of your time, IsaDC
20:16:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For the "link" test plans
20:16:26 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: They both have JAWS pending, and we are planning to complete them by Monday
20:17:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are no conflicts in NVDA, so I think NVDA is done
20:17:55 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: In that test plan, there are tests that ask you to press a button to get information about a link. NVDA says "linked" at the end--is that correct?
20:18:08 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I think it could be confusing
20:18:18 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I was going to mention that, as well
20:18:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's not normal behavior
20:18:28 <jugglinmike> present+ James_Scholes
20:18:54 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: This is probably related to NVDA's internals, where links have a state named "linked"
20:19:37 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: NVDA does track the "visited" status as well
20:20:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It does feel like excess verbosity to me. We could mark it as such and label the problem "moderate". It seems like it's worth calling out because there's no value in that state...
20:20:26 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Yeah. When would a link not be linked?
20:20:58 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think it may be related to spans of text...
20:22:45 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I've found a link on Wikipedia that doesn't have a "linked" state
20:23:14 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think the likelihood of their fixing this particular behavior is very low
20:23:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That doesn't mean we shouldn't report it, though
20:25:15 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I can update both test plans
20:25:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Well that was unexpectedly interesting!
20:26:33 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: This looks to be an exposure of the underlying IAccessible2
20:27:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Looking at link example 3, we only have JAWS remaining, and IsaDC told us that will be done by Monday
20:27:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're not going to talk about radio group--that's on hold
20:27:29 <jugglinmike> present+ hadi
20:27:33 <jugglinmike> hadi: Why is it on hold?
20:28:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We were working on changes due to the issue that the setup script was hiding a heading and changing results. We made a decision to change the script and then re-run the effected tests
20:28:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hopefully your work will be preserved!
20:28:22 <jugglinmike> hadi: I hope so, too
20:28:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hopefully we'll have this back on the agenda next week
20:28:58 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue 1194 - Same-page link assertions
20:29:09 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1194
20:29:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This came up during the testing of the disclosure navigation menu
20:30:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The thing that we're testing is the behavior that occurs when you activate a same-page link
20:30:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the disclosure navigation menu example, you activate a link in the navigation menu to the overview page, and the example script loads the content of the overview page which includes a heading that says "overview"
20:30:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: What happens is your screen reader reading cursor is placed at that point in the DOM (it travels from the link overview to this place on the page in the heading)
20:31:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The href on that link is pointing to an ID and the ID is on a DIV, and that DIV includes that heading as well as some additional content
20:31:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have written assertions for that test, and the assertions are currently saying that it should announce the heading role, the heading level, and the heading text
20:31:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: but we don't have a basis for those assertions in the standards!
20:32:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Because the heading is just the first thing in the div
20:33:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This came up in our meetings with Vispero because their behavior in this particular case was not great, and they fixed two bugs. It prompted a discussion about what "SHOULD" the behavior be?
20:34:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The challenge with same-page links is that they could be pointing to an empty span, a container with a lot of content, a semantic element like a heading, or a element with no semantics and just a text done
20:34:11 <jugglinmike> s/done/node/
20:34:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're kind of in a tough position here because if we want to have expected behaviors that work for any same-page link...
20:34:50 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I'm not sure that we do want that
20:35:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great point. I wrote about this in the issue
20:36:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we're going to define expected behaviors for any specific example. Say we were going to test a bunch of different examples--we would need some kind of approach to saying what the expected behaviors for each of them. What is the basis for saying "these are the things that should be spoken in this specific case?"
20:36:58 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: It sounds like what we're implying is the behavior of the common-case even though we're only testing one pair of roles
20:37:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When we test combo box, we will use the exact same principals for every single combo box
20:37:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In essence, in all these cases, if you go back--from our tests, we're going to be able to derive general principals about expected behaviors. This is kind of test-driven standards development, in a sense
20:38:12 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I agree. But there are always cases that are going to be more easily matched than others
20:38:26 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: [gives an example of such a case]
20:39:01 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think you're right that the current assertions don't have any basis in the standards
20:39:17 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think we should assert that it reads the role of region and the name and leave it at that
20:40:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If our test is based on a principal that only applies in one specific case, then how does that help if you are testing a different same-page link?
20:40:22 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: The role and the name should be relevant regardless
20:40:45 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think those expectations hold across use-cases
20:41:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It sounds like you're kind of deriving an algorithm
20:41:26 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Sure
20:41:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I suggested that we could have a generic expectation or a specific expectation
20:42:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: A generic expectation would be an assertion along the lines of "the new location is conveyed". We have the user needs (they need to know that they activated the link and where the link took them to). If we had a generic assertion like that, and we left it up to every individual screen reader to decide how to convey that
20:43:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Or we could have a specific assertion based on some kind of logic--that's what you're talking about James_Scholes. The only challenge there is that we need to come up with some logic that we can get all screen readers to agree to
20:43:29 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I don't think the logic I've proposed would be controversial
20:43:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm not saying that it's controversial, but I'm concerned it may be an issue for folks that need to consider all the edge cases
20:44:09 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: We're not testing all the edge cases, though
20:44:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But we need to be prepared to write such tests for interoperability purposes
20:45:09 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I don't think it's appropriate for a screen reader to approach a project like ours and say, "because this test has been written in such a way that it may fail X% of tests, we don't think it's valid"
20:45:21 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria-at
20:45:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This project, as I've seen it, has been taking the logic that is expressly stated (generally speaking) in other specs--and that we're just pulling it together and trying to make it explicit. Things about how you respond to state change, focus change, etc...
20:46:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Things we've done with, eg. radio, is all based on what's in the accessibility tree and why it's there
20:46:19 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: so is what we're discussing right now
20:46:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I agree
20:47:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I would agree that it's pretty much impossible to cover all possible implementations. At a minimum, we're trying to cover all examples in APG and trying to be systematic about it
20:47:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Though we have talked about writing separate tests which are more atomic
20:48:57 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I'm not sure why we would want to essentially dilute the tests based on one use case
20:49:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Here, if the screen reader were to speak the name of the container and its role ("mythical university sample content") and spoke the heading overview...
20:50:04 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think the heading overview is an aspect of user experience and shouldn't be asserted. (I think this even though I authored the tests.) The heading is incidental
20:50:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We just wouldn't want anyone to call it "excessive verbosity"
20:51:07 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: NVDA is quite verbose in ways that goes beyond the heading
20:51:24 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: [demonstrates NVDA's behavior for this specific case]
20:51:53 <Joe_Humbert> Joe_Humbert has joined #aria-at
20:51:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That is a lot, and it's also similar to what JAWS does
20:52:30 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think there's a big difference between "we incidentally spoke the heading" (I think that's a perfect user experience--just the name, the role, and the heading)
20:53:01 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Instead, it completely ignores my "say all" preferences (and the means by which I navigated there)
20:53:14 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I find that behavior quite irritating
20:53:31 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: That's why I'm trying to distill it down into the minimum that would make people happy
20:54:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So James_Scholes is clearly advocating for the "logic" approach; I think if we take that approach, it will be our responsibility to articulate that logic clearly
20:54:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's not quite like moving with the arrow keys because you're jumping
20:55:53 <jugglinmike> hadi: When you have a "skip to" a specific landmark, they provide different announcements than when you use the landmark navigation
20:56:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think James_Scholes is saying that it should be the same regardless
20:56:29 <jugglinmike> hadi: What is the difference?
20:56:54 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I'm not a JAWS expert, but when you move to a landmark with the R key, it just reads the name and role--not the content
20:57:25 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: when you use the skip-to link, however, JAWS re-reads the page title, gives an overview of the page, and then starts reading the entire reading as though you were doing a "say all"
20:58:14 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: The reason any screen reader may be doing that is that, generally, if it's done without any scripting, it involves a change in URL, so the screen reader receives a completely different event and handles that differently
20:58:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Brett from Vispero tells me that he's addressed this in the next version of JAWS
21:00:10 <jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Anyway, there is a lot going on. If screen readers have the ability to detect that you clicked a link to move to a thing, they could choose to behave as if you moved to that thing using another navigation technique
21:00:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think the logic is actually pretty solid
21:02:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This discussion helps me a lot, here!
21:04:56 <jugglinmike> hadi: I'm also thinking it should behave just as James_Scholes suggested. I'm going to think it over some more, though
21:05:51 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
21:05:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Joe_Humbert, jugglinmike, Matt_King, howard-e, IsaDC, James_Scholes, hadi
21:05:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:05:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/06-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
21:06:03 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
21:06:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
21:06:33 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, leave
21:06:33 <RRSAgent> I see no action items