18:05:35 RRSAgent has joined #aria-at 18:05:40 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-aria-at-irc 18:05:40 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:05:41 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike 18:05:47 meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference 18:05:55 present+ jugglinmike 18:05:57 scribe+ jugglinmike 18:06:02 present+ howard-e 18:06:07 present+ ChrisCuellar 18:06:14 present+ Matt_King 18:06:20 present+ IsaDC 18:06:36 present+ mfairchild 18:08:43 Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates 18:09:22 mk: Let's add an agenda topic for the recent discussion regarding automation and GitHub Actions 18:09:30 mk: Any requests for other changes? 18:09:39 mk: Hearing none, we'll stick with what we've got planned so far 18:09:46 mk: Next Community Group Meeting: Thursday March 6 18:09:52 mk: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday March 10 18:10:43 mk: I will be traveling on March 10, so I may not be able to attend that AT Driver Subgroup meeting 18:10:50 https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/February-26%2C-2025-Agenda 18:15:02 Matt_King has joined #aria-at 18:15:10 present+ 18:19:46 s/mk:/Matt_King:/g 18:19:55 Topic: Current status 18:20:12 Matt_King: There aren't any significant changes in the status of plans this week 18:20:38 Matt_King: IsaDC and I have started putting together a spreadsheet, and we will probably start including a link to that in the agenda soon 18:21:15 Matt_King: We know what plans we're going to work on for the month of March--we have one more change to go through (an issue with the disclosure navigation menu plan), and then we decided that we're going to focus on getting all the sliders done in the month of March 18:21:48 Matt_King: We're going to try to get through one slider each week 18:22:11 Matt_King: That's essentially the plan for March. The challenge is going to be to keep up with that pace on the testing side 18:22:20 Matt_King: We don't really have enough people to go that fast 18:22:29 Matt_King: I'm going to try to recruit more volunteers at CSUN 18:22:54 Matt_King: It's going to take some time, though. We'll see how long it takes to find more people and onboard more people 18:23:07 Matt_King: In the mean time, there will be no shortage of testing work! 18:23:22 IsaDC: Perhaps we could have a testing award 18:23:43 ChrisCuellar: Bocoup would be happy to shine a spotlight on volunteers here 18:23:54 Matt_King: that's an interesting idea! 18:24:41 Topic: Disclosure nav menu testing 18:24:47 github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1195 18:24:59 Matt_King: It looks like mmos has started the work that needs to be done, here 18:25:12 Matt_King: Should we leave this issue open until all the conflicts are resolved? 18:25:26 IsaDC: Yes, I think so. If we close it now, we might lose track of any changes we have made and when we made those changes 18:25:49 Matt_King: Last week, we figured out that mmos's setting in Safari needed to be changed 18:26:01 s/mmos/mmoss/g 18:26:12 Matt_King: mmoss is running some tests again 18:26:29 IsaDC: Yes. Separately, Joe was getting silence and mmoss was getting the word region. 18:26:42 Matt_King: That's a separate issue. We'll need both of them present to address that 18:26:59 Matt_King: It will come up on the agenda next week when we get the new test in place 18:27:07 Topic: Radio group testing 18:27:19 Matt_King: Looking across all of the results that we have, I currently see quite a few conflicts 18:27:28 Matt_King: Focusing first on radio group with active descendant 18:27:51 Matt_King: It looked to me like that with JAWS, there is a lot of conflicts. It seems like IsaDC and hadi are getting different output from JAWS 18:28:10 Matt_King: Hadi isn't here, so I don't think we can debug that right now 18:28:22 Matt_King: IsaDC, has hadi responded to your inquiry, yet? 18:28:43 IsaDC: Not yet, but I think most of those conflicts come from the old data that we had. The data that the app populated for us when we re-added the test plan 18:28:53 Matt_King: So what's really required here is that hadi will have to re-run the tests 18:29:00 IsaDC: That's right. That's what I needed to do 18:29:08 Matt_King: So your output is essentially more current 18:29:15 Matt_King: We need to make sure that hadi is running JAWS 2025 18:29:42 IsaDC: There are some new good changes in VoiceOver results but there are also some concerning regressions 18:30:01 IsaDC: This is for macOS 15.3. Some of the results are different--some are positive, but others are not right 18:30:31 IsaDC: I have been focused on roving tab index 18:30:58 Matt_King: Seeing that Joe's status is the same as your status, I'm assuming that he hasn't made any progress on that, yet 18:31:10 IsaDC: He'll be testing more on Monday--he sent an e-mail to that effect 18:31:22 IsaDC: For NVDA, I finished with my test run 18:31:29 Matt_King: It looks like mmoss hasn't started, though 18:31:50 IsaDC: Can I ask Luke from PAC to run these tests? 18:32:15 Matt_King: This would be a good one since mmoss hasn't started and since mmoss has other work. We should have mmoss prioritize macOS for this and for disclosure 18:32:22 Matt_King: Change this one over to Luke 18:32:34 IsaDC: And I'll re-run the bot 18:33:13 IsaDC: We can't re-assign a test plan run from one human to another human 18:33:27 Matt_King: We talked about this feature once, but we decided not to implement it 18:34:33 Matt_King: I wonder what howard-e or jugglinmike thinks about how difficult it would be to implement re-assigning between humans 18:34:58 howard-e: Conceptually, I guess it's the same as re-assigning from the bot. Would we want to also preserve the history of that transfer? 18:35:20 Matt_King: What would happen if we did is that we would have an "incomplete" run by the first person assigned, and then a new run by the second person 18:35:40 howard-e: So the first person's run should continue to exist? In other words, are we creating a copy or doing a full reassignment? 18:35:47 Matt_King: I was thinking of a full reassignment 18:36:06 Matt_King: It would mean that any work done by the first person assigned would be attributed to the second person assigned 18:36:21 howard-e: Conceptually, it shouldn't be that heavy of a lift. 18:36:43 howard-e: I think we should still consider a use case where the original person wants to continue after-the-fact, though that may be a separate design discussion 18:37:06 Matt_King: Let's add that issue to the "general usability" project, and we can prioritize it separately 18:38:16 jugglinmike: Though from a process standpoint, EXTEND_LATER 18:38:51 Matt_King: Yeah, that makes sense. There would be a little bit of ambiguity. The new person will become responsible for the prior person's work 18:39:34 Matt_King: Okay, for the current situation, I suppose IsaDC will have to delete that test plan run (the one assigned to mmoss), create a new test plan run for the bot, and then re-assign that new test plan run to Luke 18:39:36 IsaDC: Got it 18:39:42 Topic: Automation cloud budget 18:40:08 ChrisCuellar has joined #aria-at 18:40:12 scribe+ ChrisCuellar 18:41:01 jugglinmike: We've been trying to verify Github's policy for number of job runs when we run our automated tests in Github Actions 18:42:13 Specifically, we're concerned about their billing policy, which depends on whether or not the actions are run in a public or private repo. We've stayed within their limits so far and have never been billed. We want to make sure that we don't ever hit whatever the limit is in the future, which is ambiguous 18:43:49 We've been trying to nail down their policy for free and open-source software. I still haven't been able to get a clear answer. I reached out to Michael Fairchild to see if we can determine this together. Our latest thinking is that we could maybe perform some test. We suspect that there may be a 200 minute limit per month for macOS. 18:44:28 It's a 2000 minute limit for Windows but 200 minute for macOS. 18:44:51 The latest plan is to purposely exceed the limit on macOS. 18:46:03 We want to test this in a controlled setting where we don't risk running out of job time. Maybe we can run this test once at the end of the month, so we won't interrupt VO bot usage. 18:47:30 ChrisCuellar: Why don't we run this on someone's personal account to further de-risk the limit test? 18:48:00 Matt_King: Can we run this under the W3C org? 18:49:13 jugglinmike: I can imagine the policy being different for organization than for users 18:49:45 ChrisCuellar: Maybe we can start with users before testing organizations? 18:50:05 jugglinmike: That sounds good. I'll test on my Github user account first. 18:51:48 Matt_King: I don't want to be caught by any surprises here. 18:52:12 Are those limits in place if the repositories are not public? 18:52:55 jugglinmike: The policy is a lot clearer for private repositories. They have a quota for free minutes and beyond that you start getting billed, which all gets tracked. 18:53:29 Matt_King: This sounds like a plan to me. 18:53:56 Matt_King: Have a great afternoon everyone! 18:58:13 Zakim, close meeting 18:58:13 I don't understand 'close meeting', ChrisCuellar 18:58:18 Zakim, end meeting 18:58:18 As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, howard-e, ChrisCuellar, Matt_King, IsaDC, mfairchild 18:58:20 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:58:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/26-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim 18:58:28 I am happy to have been of service, ChrisCuellar; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:58:28 Zakim has left #aria-at 18:58:36 RRSAgent, leave 18:58:36 I see no action items