19:01:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
19:01:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-aria-at-irc
19:01:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:01:14 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Matt_King
19:01:57 <Matt_King> MEETING: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group
19:02:00 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-at
19:02:16 <ChrisCuellar> present+
19:02:31 <Joe_Humbert> present+
19:02:34 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:02:38 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:02:39 <Matt_King> present+
19:02:43 <jugglinmike> present+ james
19:02:49 <jugglinmike> present+ louis
19:02:53 <jugglinmike> present+ isaDC
19:03:04 <jugglinmike> present+ hadi
19:03:15 <jugglinmike> present+ Joe_Humbert
19:03:18 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
19:03:25 <mmoss> mmoss has joined #aria-at
19:03:44 <jugglinmike> present+ mmoss
19:04:31 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
19:04:34 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/August-7%2C-2025-Agenda
19:04:44 <jugglinmike> present+ mfairchild
19:05:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Requests for changes to agenda?
19:05:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll stick with the agenda as planned
19:06:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next CG meeting: Wednesday August 13
19:06:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday August 11
19:06:17 <jugglinmike> Topic: Current status
19:06:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We currently have 5 plans in draft review and 15 in candidate
19:06:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Everything that's in the queue now is related to draft
19:06:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The three that are active are the three that we have on the agenda today
19:07:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The other two are kind of on hold at the moment
19:07:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next up: we have the disclosure (fixes were landed earlier this week)
19:07:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Tabs with manual activation will come up after that. We're just hoping to get a little experience with the first tabs-related plan, first
19:08:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: No changes with any of the screen reader developers, yet
19:08:11 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Vertical Temperature Slider
19:08:15 <jugglinmike> https://aria-at.w3.org/data-management/vertical-temperature-slider
19:08:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have conflicting results with all three screen readers
19:08:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I didn't raise issues for any of these conflicts, and I don't know if we will need to
19:09:16 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Vertical Temperature Slider - JAWS
19:09:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When I was reviewing the conflicts for JAWS, I noticed that IsaDC and Joe_Humbert recorded different results but that they were using different versions
19:09:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC reported an older version
19:10:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC perhaps the discrepancy could be resolved if IsaDC updates her software
19:10:26 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Ah, because Joe_Humbert gets the min and max, and I didn't
19:11:10 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Okay, I will update to the latest version
19:11:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: All of the conflicting results here are in test one, and they're all related to that min and max output
19:11:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So that seems potentially straightforward
19:11:51 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Vertical Temperature Slider - NVDA
19:12:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wanted to spend some time on this because for this one (and I think for other conflicts in other test plans) seems to be one of the situations where we would want to use the new feature for reporting that the assertions are untestable
19:13:17 <Joe_Humbert> Q+
19:13:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The response you reported indicates that the reading cursor didn't move, which means it wasn't on the appropriate element, so I think it is in line with one of those situations where it's more accurate to mark them as untestable (rather than marking them all as failed)
19:14:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: None of the output indicates that it would be able to pass. For us to be consistent, I think any time that the focus of the reading cursor does not end up on the right element, that we should just mark the assertions as untestable
19:14:34 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I updated those, but I need to change the side effects because yes, the cursor didn't move
19:14:36 <jugglinmike> ack Joe_Humbert
19:14:43 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: We have two different unexpected behaviors
19:14:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Well, it looks here like it wasn't reported as untestable
19:15:00 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I did report it as untestable
19:15:07 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I did not, though.
19:15:13 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I can change mine
19:15:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does the conflicts page have a bug where if you mark a test as untestable, it counts it as a failure?
19:16:27 <jugglinmike> mmoss: If you assign assertion verdicts and then later mark it as untestable, then it can enter a weird state where it is both untestable and failing
19:16:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That sounds like a real bug!
19:17:04 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: If I mark it as untestable, it removes the unexpected behaviors. That's a little annoying
19:18:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: How we write the description--we need to think about how it shows up in the report. If the screen reader developer is reading this, the misbehavior should be clear
19:18:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think what Joe_Humbert wrote is perfect
19:18:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we're aligned there: this should be untestable
19:18:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And we have an app bug to file
19:19:39 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: I'll see to it that someone at Bocoup files this app issue
19:20:01 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: The second conflict is the same as this one, it just needs to be marked as untestable. Doing that should clear up the conflicts
19:20:24 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: For this test, though, all the screen reader reports is blank, so do we need to report some negative side effects?
19:20:45 <jugglinmike> s/blank/"blank"/
19:21:01 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: This is test 3 ("using insert+up arrow in focus mode")
19:21:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't see the conflict; where did it go? It's not on the conflicts page
19:21:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think this a clear failure in this case
19:21:59 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: In that case, what should we put for the negative assertions?
19:22:12 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Because technically it doesn't convey that information
19:22:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Well then I think those should pass
19:22:29 <jugglinmike> james: I don't think it is appropriate to pass them
19:22:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Why not? If it says it does not do something, and it doesn't do that thing--then as long as it's on the right element, that's good!
19:23:08 <jugglinmike> james: the presence of negative assertions that we would have to pass should lead us to mark the test as "untestable"
19:23:29 <jugglinmike> james: I don't think anyone would say, "it says 'blank' but at least it doesn't..."
19:23:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The "untestable" feature is for when the behavior blocks the evaluation of the assertion
19:24:10 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I guess IsaDC and I just need to know what we need to put here. We all know it isn't working right
19:24:37 <jugglinmike> james: If it were to pass the other assertions, we wouldn' tbe having this conversation because it actually reported something relevant to the test at hand
19:24:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It is not reporting the correct information
19:25:14 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I have a question here. How is this report of the wrong information different than the test we just discussed?
19:25:28 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: In the previous test, we pressed a key, and it doesn't move and reports the wrong information
19:25:37 <jugglinmike> james: It's the not moving that makes the difference
19:25:57 <jugglinmike> james: You are on the right element, and it did the wrong thing (as opposed to not being on the right element in the first place)
19:26:18 <jugglinmike> james: To me, it is misleading to say that by not doing anything, the AT did the right thing
19:26:40 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: It's still failing a couple assertions, so overall, it's still evident that something is wrong
19:26:51 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: So, fail everything but the negative assertions
19:26:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right
19:27:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we need more clear guidance, then I'd be happy to write it up
19:27:39 <jugglinmike> james: I think this resolution is fine for this situation, but I think we'll see this again, and if it concerns a more core behavior, then it will be more difficult for us
19:27:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So for these negative assertions, it's probably important that they are optional
19:28:28 <jugglinmike> james: The assertion itself--maybe in the future we would want to be able to mark an individual assertion as untestable
19:28:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe. That feels complicated.
19:28:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: What was the negative assertion?
19:29:00 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: minimum value, maximum value, and a numeric value
19:29:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Oh, this is the value text thing
19:29:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right. This is just a weird ARIA thing, where you have two different kinds of values for the same slider, but only one of them is relevant to the user
19:29:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Those negative assertions are almost a side-effect of the spec being silly
19:30:07 <jugglinmike> james: I think the spec is off in that it says you should use both
19:30:34 <jugglinmike> james: I think that's misleading. And there is at least one screen reader that conveys both in a confusing fashion
19:31:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The more we talk about this, the more I realize that what we've found here is a reasonably bad bug in ARIA itself. It's kind of unfair, in a sense, for the interoperability test to be needing this negative assertion at all
19:31:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The purpose of a negative assertion is to tell the screen reader not to pay attention to this ARIA bug. At least that's the way I'm looking at it right now
19:32:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't think that we should be over-complicated the interoperabilty test because of the inconsistent specification of ARIA itself
19:32:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're saying not to repeat something that shouldn't be there (the spec requires it to be there, but the spec should not require it to be there)
19:33:02 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: So what do we do here?
19:33:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're going to mark the negative assertions as passing
19:33:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The long-term fix is to get ARIA changed and then to remove the negative assertions
19:33:32 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: And there's no negative side-effects?
19:33:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right. No negative side-effects
19:35:03 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Vertical Temperature Slider - VoiceOver
19:35:20 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: One of the conflicts is the negative assertions. One of you has it passed and one of you has it failed
19:35:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The VoiceOver cursor doesn't actually move, even though it speaks a different element on the page. But it doesn't actually move
19:35:56 <jugglinmike> dean: I don't recall exactly what it did, but it did not move
19:36:09 <jugglinmike> dean: I don't think that counts as "moved in an unexpected manner". I think it's "other"
19:36:24 <jugglinmike> mmoss: That's the behavior I saw as well, so I marked it as "other"
19:37:13 <jugglinmike> dean: I've been talking about accordion
19:37:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We haven't reached that, yet
19:37:36 <jugglinmike> dean: Ah, sorry! I'll finish the work on vertical temperature slider
19:38:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In this case, the VoiceOver output is just bizarre. It reads the heading level. I remember trying this out myself. You have the focus on the slider, you press the 'home' key, and for some reason, VoiceOver reads the heading level on the heading that's above the slider
19:40:09 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I just confirmed: it changes the slider value and reads the heading, but the cursor appears to remain on the slider
19:40:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, so for the negative assertion, dean was passing it. mmoss was failing it, but it seems like the negative assertion should pass
19:40:53 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Yes, this speaks to the conversation we were just having with james
19:41:27 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I couldn't determine that the reading cursor changed until attempting to navigate again after the action
19:41:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yeah, this one is sort of a strange one because it's not obvious what's happening
19:42:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: You both recorded the same unexpected behavior: reading cursor changed in an unexpected manner
19:43:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we mark it as untestable, I don't know how to fix it with the current bug.
19:43:26 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I have to mark it as no longer being untestable, then I can change the values, then I can re-mark it as untestable
19:44:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: All assertions should be untestable, but there's no way to un-check the radios in the current UI. So I think we're stuck until we fix the bug
19:44:36 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: Didn't we have a discussion as tri-state?
19:44:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Originally, yes, then we want to checkboxes, then we went to radios
19:45:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I understand the appeal to tri-state. We implemented "untestable" as a checkbox because we wanted to make sure that all of the assertions were marked as untestable
19:45:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If you check untestable, we want to make sure that the radios are unchecked
19:45:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That way we don't have to force the testers to deal with tri-states
19:46:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If that was the behavior, then there would be no problem, and mmoss would be able to fix his test plan run
19:46:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we're stuck with this one on the slider. But if we get a fix for it next week, we can move on in our next meeting
19:47:05 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Accordion Test Plan - VoiceOver
19:47:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think that all the ones that were "shift+B" or "shift+J", that those were supposed to be untestable, and that's where most of the conflicts lie
19:47:47 <jugglinmike> dean: I mentioned this in my e-mail. The cursor goes to the form field, and VoiceOver asks "what do you want to put into the form field?"
19:48:07 <jugglinmike> dean: So my question is: do you make that untestable? If I toggle QuickNav off and then back on, then the command works
19:48:34 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I always toggle QuickNav off and on after each test. I didn't experience what you've reported, and I think that's why
19:49:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The command requires you to have Quick Nav on, and if you went into it with Quick Nav off and then turned it on, then mmoss is saying that it works
19:49:44 <jugglinmike> dean: It worked for me, too, but it didn't work if I started the test with Quick Nav on
19:49:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've encountered this in real life, too. It's very frustrating
19:50:06 <jugglinmike> james: Can you turn autocomplete off in your browser?
19:50:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For the purpose of this test? I don't think we want to
19:50:37 <jugglinmike> james: We test screen readers with default settings, but we've never had a case where someone's browser settings has caused conflicts
19:51:09 <jugglinmike> james: We don't ask testers to reset the settings of their browsers (that would make testing very difficult--logging in again, etc)
19:51:51 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if autocomplate is on or off by default in Safari, but I have some reservations
19:52:11 <jugglinmike> dean: This is for "navigate backwards to an expanded accordion"
19:53:21 <jugglinmike> james: VoiceOver is bad a responding to the web page setting focus as opposed to the user setting focus
19:55:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We might need to raise an issue for this test 8 conflict to decide
19:56:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For test 8, I want to get multiple peoples' observations
19:56:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And then, let's talk about all the others
19:57:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: dean, for the remaining accordion tests, can you mark the "shift+J" and others--where the focus wasn't moving--as "untestable"? I think that will resolve most of the conflicts.
19:58:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're almost out of time. We can raise an issue and talk more about this next week
19:58:17 <jugglinmike> subtopic: Tabs with Automatic Activation
19:58:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Louis found a bug in the app. I can't submit one of the tests. It only impacts test 13 for JAWS
19:59:36 <jugglinmike> James: there are details in the issue report
19:59:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Bocoup expects to deploy a fix next week
20:00:11 <jugglinmike> present+ ChrisCuellar
20:00:25 <jugglinmike> ChrisCuellar: It impacts just that one test and only JAWS and VoiceOver
20:00:47 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I'll send an e-mail with these details to Joe_Humbert when I have the bots assigned
20:00:58 <jugglinmike> Hadi: this was one of the most interactive meetings that we've had!
20:01:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: More tests are coming soon. Disclosure could come online this week, and then the tabs with manual activation should come online next week
20:01:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks, all!
20:01:46 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:01:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ChrisCuellar, Joe_Humbert, jugglinmike, Matt_King, james, louis, isaDC, hadi, mmoss, mfairchild
20:01:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:01:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
20:01:57 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:01:57 <jugglinmike> rrsagent, leave
20:01:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
20:01:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at