Meeting minutes
Matt_King: Call for changes to agenda
howard-e: No need for this to be an agenda topic but curious if folks have android devices to help out with upcoming mobile testing efforts
Matt_King: Yep, and Howard just to do a write-up of what we'll be looking for there
Elizabeth: I have an android
Matt_King: Great, that would be valuable
LouisDo: I also have a pixel 7 that I can dust off
Matt_King: Great so we have a few people. And I check internally on getting a device
Matt_King: Reminder that we have an AT subgroup meeting on the 9th and this meeting is next week on the 12th
Current status
Matt_King: We have a few items in draft review that are blocked that we'll be discussing today on how to unblock
Matt_King: accordion is in progress and that could get us to 18 and a few more are coming so this could get us closer to this goal of getting to 23
Matt_King: Unblocking vertical temp slider and rating radio group are very close
Matt_King: We have 4 in draft review. Isa met yesterday and have concerns with the date picker and you said you'll raise an issue to track that, right jscholes?
Matt_King: Isa is currently working on a test plan for the tabs activation
Matt_King: Anything to add on that Isa?
Isa: nothing tehre
Matt_King: The APG fix for the vertical temperate slider has been pushed to the week of June 16th
Isa: could we pull that?
Matt_King: Ah, you're just dependent on pulling it from the main branch so maybe you're unblocked here actually
Isa: Yes I could
Matt_King: Actually, you continue to focus on tabs on your side, I'll see if there's anything I can do to accelerate that
Matt_King: What script is it that pulls from APG
Matt_King: Let's get the tabs done and we can come back to it and maybe get it done sooner than we thought
Re-run JAWS report for color viewer slider
Isa: I still need to contact Hadi on this
Matt_King: Okay, well this is not blocking our goals for candidate review but is blocking review from Vispero
Issue 1246 - Arrow keys in NVDA test plans
github: w3c/
Matt_King: I was looking into what was blocking the radio group test plan and it's this issue
Matt_King: We have all the reports done except for NVDA and they're conflicts. WHich are related to this issue
Matt_King: would like for us to prioritize getting this issue resolved and the first step is re-running these plans in the Test Queue
Matt_King: This is the Feb 12 Radiogroup using aria-activedescendant. Isa and LouisDo are assigned here and no work seems to be started there just yet
Matt_King: But looks like you have no bot results for yours Isa
Isa: I'll re-run the bot for myself then
Matt_King: Is this something you can prioritize this week LouisDo?
LouisDo: Yep
Matt_King: One thing particularly is if the bot gathered the right input for the up and down arrow commands
LouisDo: I can definitely pay attention to those
Matt_King: Looking right now at test 1's down arrow, down arrow command. Maybe we could move faster if .. Looking at the bot run assigned to Louis right now ...
<Matt_King> NVDA output from test 1 down arrow command:
<Matt_King> heading
<Matt_King> level 3
<Matt_King> Pizza Crust
<Matt_King> grouping
<Matt_King> radio button
<Matt_King> not checked
<Matt_King> Regular crust
<Matt_King> radio button
<Matt_King> not checked
<Matt_King> Deep dish
<Matt_King> radio button
<Matt_King> not checked
<Matt_King> Thin crust
Matt_King: So the bot recorded output for all of the radio buttons. So the bot is giving results for the same thing James was getting
Matt_King: So this is different if you look at the same results from the reports page
Matt_King: Actually, the down arrow, down arrow is the same here. It was the ins+up arrow there was a disagreement
Matt_King: Maybe it's the insert + Up arrow we were concerned with when raising the issue.
Matt_King: The test says "navigate forwards into a radio group where no radio buttons are checked" so not necessarily pinpointing any
Matt_King: So if we include down arrow for NVDA then the assertions would definitely be wrong
Matt_King: In test 7 "navigate forwards to unchecked radio button", we didn't include the arrow key in that one, we just did f and r and in test 8, shift + f and shift + r
Matt_King: same with tests 9 and 10
Matt_King: But in test 15, we have insert + up arrow and the report says ... but even the test name says we're collecting information about a radio button, and also 14
Matt_King: It says out of grouping
Isa: I think the bot was giving wrong results
LouisDo: From what I was testing, the commands I was testing gave right output but the bot was doing something different
LouisDo: I think the bot was executing up arrow but not insert + up arrow
LouisDo: so i should still prioritize in that way?
Matt_King: Wondering if we should even restructure the tests in that way based on that
Matt_King: So the decisions to make here is if we should remove down arrow from tests 2 and 3
jscholes: If you're in focus mode, and press insert + up, you should here only that radio button and not any of these others
Matt_King: The bot is also mentioning 'top' in the output which makes me think it might be on an edit field
jscholes: top only gets uttered if you move the cursor to the beginning of something it is already on
jscholes: it happens with desktop mode with numpad 7 and laptop layout when you do insert + up
jscholes: could the bot be configured to use laptop layout?
Matt_King: It seems like the bot is configured in that way
Isa: It is invalidating the commands in some way then, because it would mean the bot isn't following the default settings instructions
Matt_King: And in laptop layout, if you press insert + up arrow in browse mode, it would actually be ignoring the insert
jscholes: well in browse mode, when you move the arrow keys, you're moving the NVDA document cursor. If you press insert + up or numpad 7, you move the view cursor and not the browse cursor
jscholes: you would move the review cursor up by 1 line so it's impossible to say from the output alone which cursor it's moving
Matt_King: But it does appear to be consistent with laptop mode
jscholes: exactly
Matt_King: Well 2 things, 1 is we may have found a bot bug and 2 is making a decision on how to modify all 3 tests
Matt_King: Tests 14 and 15. Or any test when reading the current radio button, we want to read the name of radio button and it's state?
jscholes: I would find it odd not to also mention the role
Matt_King: So maybe we don't test ins + up arrow at all or we just test it for name, role and state
jscholes: But it would fail
Matt_King: right, but not all. would get the name
Matt_King: Do we think in browse mode, because the default is screen layout that it's legit for us to just not test insert + up arrow?
LouisDo: The objection to that is that combination is too verbose, no?
Matt_King: Well insert + up arrow according to NVAccess, is that it's not the intent so that's an argument in favor of leaving it out
jscholes: In a way, they are designed to provide the function but as a subset of what they do
Matt_King: it gives a lot of information but I suppose you just don't know which button is the current button
Matt_King: we have things like position but it doesn't tell you what you're on. But the whole purpose of the test is telling you about one specific button
Isa: In a way it does, but it gives more
LouisDo: Right and that's probably NVAccess position as well, but we aren't expecting it in that way
jscholes: It's like in a way, calling a "say all" and it said too much things. I don't think it's excess verbosity as it's behaving as intended though
Isa: So it's not necessarily failing so I don't think we should leave it out
jscholes: yes, i don't think we leave it out. But if we include these assertions, it will pass them. People tend to not really notice what's missing
LouisDo: So it's moot?
jscholes: NVAccess may have more of an issue with leaving them out
jscholes: I still don't think it makes sense to navigate into the end of a radio list with an up arrow because you can't do that
Isa: That may be a different test jscoles
Matt_King: One of things that give me concern now is in which of the reports, is that the output for insert + up arrow is inaccurate
Matt_King: We need to scrutinize the insert + up arrow in all the results
Matt_King: I also want to go back and take a fresh look at those conflicts
Matt_King: Also including insert + down and raise an issue for each result we find
Run of accordion test plan
Matt_King: LouisDo should be ready to be assigned to accordion