19:05:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
19:05:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-aria-at-irc
19:05:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:05:17 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
19:05:35 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
19:05:40 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:05:41 <Joe_Humbert> present+
19:05:44 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:05:46 <mmoss> present+
19:05:51 <jugglinmike> present+ james
19:05:56 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
19:06:02 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
19:06:22 <jugglinmike> present+ ChrisCuellar
19:06:28 <jugglinmike> Topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
19:06:31 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/August-21%2C-2025-Agenda
19:06:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any requests for changes to the agenda?
19:06:58 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
19:07:02 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria-at
19:07:05 <howard-e> present+
19:07:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll use the agenda as planned
19:07:21 <Matt_King> present+
19:07:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next CG meeting: Wednesday August 27
19:07:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday September 8
19:07:55 <jugglinmike> Topic: Current status
19:08:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have seven plans in draft review right now
19:08:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Five of them are pretty active, and two of them we have to get back to
19:08:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I was hoping I would have time to look into the "disclosure navigation menu" to see if there is still anything blocking us, but I don't think we'll get to that today
19:08:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC is working on three more for draft review
19:08:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We might get those mostly ready for testing by the end of the month
19:09:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That will put us within striking range of having 25 plans in Candidate Review
19:09:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That could happen in September. It will be a pretty big step up!
19:09:44 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running vertical temperature slider test plan
19:09:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We've completed both JAWS and NVDA on this one, which is awesome
19:10:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are only three conflicts for VoiceOver. These are related to two tests that are untestable
19:10:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Last week, we were waiting on an app fix (where it would automatically uncheck yes/no radios when we checked "untestable")
19:11:23 <jugglinmike> howard-e: We released a fix for that
19:11:31 <jugglinmike> present+ Hadi
19:11:48 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Do Testers have to re-submit results?
19:11:56 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Because we still have conflicts
19:12:27 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #aria-at
19:12:41 <jugglinmike> present+ mfairchild
19:12:57 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I marked this as "untestable" originally
19:13:25 <jugglinmike> mmoss: This was one that I re-ran. We didn't have the "untestable" test run for my initial run
19:14:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is for tests number 8 and 9
19:15:04 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Oh, this might be an issue with Deans results, but not with mine
19:15:14 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Yes, Dean passed an assertion incorrectly
19:15:21 <jugglinmike> s/Deans/Dean's/
19:15:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does this submit?
19:15:51 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: What happens if you submit it?
19:16:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: On yours, mmoss, it says "other"
19:16:46 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Right, because it doesn't seem like the cursor is actually changing--it's just reading the wrong thing
19:16:59 <jugglinmike> mmoss: That's why we changed it to "other". I don't think Dean has done that
19:17:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think in the description, we would want to say something like "instead of reading the new slider value, it is reading the heading of the slider"
19:17:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: ...so it's a little more clear exactly what the problem is
19:17:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: But instead of saying "seems to have changed", should we just say, "it's announcing the heading"?
19:18:11 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Yes, I think that's more clear
19:18:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, so if you could update your test results
19:18:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Dean couldn't be here today, but he has observed the same behavior, so I think it's fair to update his results for both test 8 and 9
19:18:49 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Okay, I will do that
19:19:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great--then, this test plan will be done
19:19:54 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running accordion test plan
19:20:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is one that I don't know if we can really talk about. We're all done with this one, as well. JAWS and NVDA are both complete
19:20:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have 42 conflicting VoiceOver results
19:20:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now that we have the app fix, I think we're good to go here
19:20:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We just need Dean to go through and correct his results. I guess he didn't get to that, yet
19:20:57 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I will e-mail Dean and tell him what we need
19:21:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Just taking care of the "untestable" stuff should cut down that 42 number down by a lot
19:21:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And I recall that there were some other changes that he was going to make
19:22:13 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running "Tabs with Automatic Activation" test plan
19:22:41 <jugglinmike> (This topic is not present in the agenda. The group decided to add this topic on-the-fly)
19:23:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We made changes to tests 10 through 14. That's eight of the 15 tests changed as a result of last week's discussion
19:23:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There were conflicts for JAWS, but they could go away because they are in tests that changed
19:24:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In test 3, the outputs look the same betweeh Hadi and Louis
19:24:48 <jugglinmike> s/betweeh/between/
19:25:27 <jugglinmike> Hadi: I think Louis was complaining about some redundancy--the word "selected" is repeated
19:25:37 <jugglinmike> Hadi: I didn't think that was a reason to fail the test
19:25:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It says "Selected" and then it says "One of four selected"
19:25:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That is a little strange
19:26:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if we should report that or not
19:26:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I kind of feel like Vispero might want to know about it. It's pretty moderate. But it certainly isn't ideal.
19:26:57 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I mean, it is reporting it twice
19:27:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's not expected. We say there should not be any moderate side-effects
19:27:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think there's no harm in reporting it and then seeing what Vispero says. They've been very responsive. I think this is a judgment call
19:27:55 <jugglinmike> Hadi: I agree. Let's report it. If they are eager to fix it, then that's good; otherwise, we'll live with it
19:28:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we look at a strict reading of our criteria, this test doesn't give any incorrect information, so it doesn't quite meet the bar
19:28:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We could raise an issue with them but not put it in these reports
19:29:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we're sticking to our guns about our definition of what "excess verbosity" is, that's probably the more judicious route
19:29:21 <jugglinmike> Hadi: Redundancy generally raises my suspicion
19:29:32 <jugglinmike> Hadi: I think we can report it to them and see
19:29:44 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I think they'll appreciate the feedback. It's moderate, after all
19:29:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm fine with leaving it in. If you want to match that in your report Hadi, you can
19:30:59 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: This reminds me a little bit of alert. If Vispero wants to keep it, would we add a "MAY" assertion for this?
19:31:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I can't think of an optional assertion that we could add that would be relevant
19:31:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We already have an assertion related to the selected state, and it's a MUST
19:32:30 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike: You could write something like "MAY communicate the selected state twice", if only to commemorate the fact that we observed this, talked about it, and decided to accept it
19:32:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't think there's much room for interoperability improvements here
19:33:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, so this affects multiple tests
19:33:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think all of these are related to the same thing
19:34:19 <jugglinmike> Hadi: I submitted an issue. Do you see the word "none not selected" when using arrow up on a tab list?
19:34:32 <jugglinmike> Hadi: The question was confusing because it gave the impression that you should be hearing "not selected"
19:34:51 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: That was a mistake on our side; we've corrected it, but we haven't added the new test plan into the test plan, yet
19:34:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So you merged it, but it's not in the queue, yet?
19:35:01 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: No
19:35:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, let's do that. It's going to change the whole conflict picture
19:36:47 <jugglinmike> [Matt_King forces the new version of the test plan into the queue]
19:37:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now it says that it's 40% complete for JAWS with two testers. And now it says 9 of Hadi's 15 tests are complete (so we essentially lost 6 from you, though that doesn't mean those tests are fully lost). And we have five conflicts
19:37:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The conflicts are different because you're results for test 3 need to be revisited
19:38:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The conflicts for test 5 and 7 are still here, and those are the same
19:38:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Test 5 has the same kind of verbosity conflicts that we were just talking about a minute ago
19:38:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Test 7 also has that same thing. They're very consistent here
19:38:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And also test 8
19:39:20 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So I think we've covered that conflict. Hadi, can you go back through tests 1 through 4 (and I'm not sure which others)?
19:39:22 <jugglinmike> Hadi: Okay!
19:39:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then we have two conflicts in NVDA, and this was Joe_Humbert and Louis
19:40:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Joe_Humbert, a lot of the feedback on this test plan came from you, so hopefully we've addressed everything that you thought was a problem
19:40:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In terms of conflict, we have test 10, "activating the last tab"...
19:41:05 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: We didn't get to talk about this last time. The bot had repeated information because the speech viewer was repeating information, but the screen reader was not voicing the repeated information
19:41:18 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: What the screen reader was saying and what was present in the speech viewer was not matching
19:41:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Oh my!
19:41:56 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Louis isn't here, but I suspect he changed the output. I left mine so that I could bring it to the Community Group
19:42:25 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I initially thought this was a problem with the bot, but when I went to run the test manually, I observed the same behavior
19:43:19 <jugglinmike> James: the bot is collecting the information which is sent to the synthesizer
19:44:06 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: This occurs on a couple of the tests for "tabs with automatic activation" with NVDA. The collected output was wrong because what was present in the speech viewer did not align with what was voiced by the screen reader
19:44:51 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: I suspect that NVDA is sending the string to the vocalizer twice
19:45:05 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: And that the voice interrupts itself
19:45:07 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
19:45:24 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I don't know if this is feedback that we need to send to NVDA
19:45:52 <jugglinmike> James: You can start to hear the first vocalization before the second interrupts it. It sounds almost as if it is stuttering
19:46:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is there a chance that there are two "focus change" events?
19:46:10 <jugglinmike> James: That's possible
19:46:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we might want to mark this as excess verbosity
19:46:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does the dupe show up in Braille? Because you don't get interruptions in Braille
19:47:12 <jugglinmike> James: so you're suggesting that it is render the Braille twice? One after the other? Or that it would "click" twice in rapid succession?
19:47:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know
19:47:26 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: I don't think I would report it if it doesn't impact end users
19:47:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yeah. I'm having this question in my head...
19:47:43 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: It doesn't announce it twice
19:47:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It introduces a stutter
19:48:23 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: This is why I captured it. It's weird, and I thought we needed to discuss it
19:48:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The bot reported it twice because the bot gets it so fast
19:48:57 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Do I need to change mine?
19:49:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm thinking about how this works with the automation. If we record it once, and then in the future, the bot spits it out twice, again, we're in a situation where it always conflicts
19:49:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We don't want to say that the "double output" is good output, but we also don't want to say it's a failure
19:49:59 <jugglinmike> mfairchild: This is a situation where it would be great to be able to document what went wrong but still test it
19:51:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the side effects, we have "SEVERE" and "MODERATE". We could add a new value that we have observed something that doesn't matter
19:51:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we put in a severity that's equivalent to "NONE" (and maybe rename from "negative side-effect" to just "side-effect"), then we could report it but avoid failing an assertion
19:52:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the mean time, the only question is: do we delete the duplication or not?
19:52:21 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I think we should keep it because of the bot
19:52:50 <jugglinmike> ChrisCuellar: I'm curious about the process. This happens in the VO Bot (I'm discussing this with Corey as we speak).
19:53:35 <jugglinmike> ChrisCuellar: Let's say the bot reports duplicate announcements (for whatever reason). Joe_Humbert, when you get the bot run reassigned to you, and you're determining the verdict--I would assume you are running the test again and confirming whether you observe the same thing
19:53:37 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Correct
19:54:02 <jugglinmike> ChrisCuellar: So whatever the human tester observes on their machine, that should supersede the bot's output
19:54:14 <jugglinmike> James: We are observing this. I can hear a stutter
19:54:31 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: If we use the speech history add-on, it would record this twice, as well
19:54:39 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: It does. That's why I brought this up
19:54:49 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I think this a failure
19:55:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, but we agree that we would report this as a "NONE" side-effect (instead of "MODERATE") if we could
19:55:27 <jugglinmike> James: It shouldn't say it twice.
19:56:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We can file an issue to discuss this further and then in the comments for this moderate negative side-effect, we could include a link to that issue
19:56:25 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: So, besides changing this from "other" to "verbose output", do I need to change the details?
19:56:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We could say, "Speech is duplicated but only heard once due to automatic interruption"
19:56:52 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Sure, I can do that
19:57:08 <jugglinmike> James: I'm really curious to how this is expressed on a Braille display
19:57:46 <jugglinmike> Topic: Switch and disclosure
19:57:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The main thing we need right now is testers
19:58:00 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: And we have Bot results ready
19:58:03 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I can help
19:58:12 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: You can assign me any screen reader you want
19:58:47 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Just know that my new test machine is Windows 11, not Windows 10
19:58:57 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I'll assign you to all three, then. Thank you!
19:59:06 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I volunteer for VoiceOver
19:59:14 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Thank you!
19:59:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thank you, everybody. We're making some really awesome progress here
20:00:37 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:00:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, Joe_Humbert, mmoss, james, IsaDC, Matt_King, ChrisCuellar, howard-e, Hadi, mfairchild
20:00:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:00:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
20:00:49 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:00:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
20:01:53 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
20:01:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items