17:04:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-at
17:05:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/27-aria-at-irc
17:05:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:05:03 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-at
17:05:03 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jugglinmike
17:05:16 <jugglinmike> meeting: ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Weekly Teleconference
17:05:19 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
17:05:23 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
17:05:28 <Joe_Humbert> present+
17:05:29 <jugglinmike> present+ IsaDC
17:05:29 <howard-e> present+
17:05:35 <jugglinmike> present+ carmen
17:05:37 <jugglinmike> present+ james
17:05:37 <mmoss> present+
17:05:39 <jugglinmike> present+ dean
17:05:46 <jugglinmike> present+ kelly
17:06:05 <Carmen> Carmen has joined #aria-at
17:06:38 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #aria-at
17:08:22 <jugglinmike> present+ Matt_King
17:08:48 <jugglinmike> topic: Review agenda and next meeting dates
17:08:51 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/August-27%2C-2025-Agenda
17:09:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any requests for changes to the agenda?
17:09:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll stick with the agenda as planned
17:09:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next CG meeting: Thursday September 4
17:09:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Next AT Driver Subgroup meeting: Monday September 8
17:10:07 <jugglinmike> Topic: Current status
17:10:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We now have seven plans in draft review
17:10:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's the same as last week, but it's different plans
17:10:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Vertical temperature slider advanced to "candidate review"
17:10:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's an awesome accomplishment
17:11:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we have five active test plans. "Switch with HTML button" is a brand-new one that was just added this week, along with another disclosure plan
17:12:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Coming at the end of this meeting, if everything goes well, are two more test plans
17:12:14 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: IsaDC is working on both of those right now
17:12:42 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: By the time of the next meeting, we could have nine things to work on in the queue. That's a bunch of work and sets us up well for James' and IsaDC's upcoming time off
17:13:02 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Matt_King, the switch with the checkbox is ready for your review
17:13:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Got it
17:13:14 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running accordion test plan
17:13:36 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Last week, we had 42 conflicting results. Now, we're down to 21 conflicting results
17:14:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have conflicts in test 2. Are they all in test 2?
17:14:21 <jugglinmike> Dean: Yes. I resolved a bunch of them yesterday. Some of it was about not clearing out the result when marking stuff as "untestable"
17:14:31 <jugglinmike> Dean: It works now, and that fixed a bunch of them
17:14:52 <jugglinmike> Dean: The other one was a user error--I didn't set my keyboard back to "use function keys as function keys"
17:15:18 <jugglinmike> Dean:  The only thing we have left is that stuff where it jumps to a form field, you press "b", and it enters the "b" value instead of running a command
17:15:34 <jugglinmike> Dean: I still need to investigate that further to understand what's going on there
17:15:45 <jugglinmike> Dean: I sent mmoss a note about this very recently
17:15:51 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I'm not observing that behavior
17:15:59 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's interesting.
17:16:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: You are each on different versions--18.5 and 18.6. That could possibly explain the incongruence
17:16:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's also possible that you've configured your browsers differently
17:17:05 <jugglinmike> Dean: I think it's a forms-mode-versus-browse-mode problem
17:17:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Or it could be browser version differences
17:17:35 <jugglinmike> mmoss: And I don't have any "auto-fill web form" settings checked in Safari
17:17:52 <jugglinmike> Dean: I use that all the time. I don't remember turning it on, but I bet that's it
17:18:02 <jugglinmike> Dean: I'll update everything and go back and look for that setting
17:18:27 <jugglinmike> James: I think the problem is that mmoss has never saved any data, so it's not going to offer mmoss the option to fill out any data
17:18:33 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: What did the bot report?
17:19:34 <jugglinmike> James: I will note (for completeness) that while we want people to test with defaults, we never actually tell people to set their browser to default settings
17:19:45 <jugglinmike> James: You can't easily do this in incognito because you have to be logged in
17:20:09 <jugglinmike> Dean: When it comes to something like autofill, can't we assume that most people will be saving their data?
17:20:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yeah, this is a can of worms I was hoping not to get in to
17:20:49 <jugglinmike> Dean: I'll try setting it back, seeing if I still get the same response. If I don't, then we can report a bug to Apple saying that "this doesn't work if you have autofill on"
17:21:15 <jugglinmike> Dean: I've got another Mac that is totally wiped that I can try this with. I'll update everything on it
17:22:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Sounds like we have next steps defined for this one. Cool!
17:22:44 <jugglinmike> mmoss: We had one test case where the reading cursor doesn't move to the expected element, but it remains on the existing element (which does have the same role as the element that it's moving to). I passed the assertion about the role.
17:22:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That should be marked as "untestable"
17:23:07 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Ah, yes. That was the one that I missed.
17:23:16 <jugglinmike> Dean: and that was the only one that I wanted you to look at
17:23:23 <jugglinmike> mmoss: Great catch--thank you
17:23:37 <jugglinmike> Dean: I may be able to get this one closed out today. I'll e-mail you with whatever I find
17:23:47 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: It will be amazing if we can mark this as final
17:24:39 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Now we're done to just VoiceOver conflicts in one single test
17:25:23 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running test plan for Tabs with Automatic Activation
17:25:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: we have conflicts in JAWS and NVDA
17:25:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: None of the results are complete, yet. But I figure it's still worth reviewing to get a sense of what kind of trouble we're running in to
17:26:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In JAWS, we have conflicts in tests 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
17:26:41 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I will clear Louis' conflicts
17:26:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is the "Selected one of four selected" thing
17:27:22 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: We agreed to mark this as overly verbose
17:27:38 <jugglinmike> James: If we had Hadi's agreement last week, then is it appropriate to do that for him?
17:27:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think so, yes
17:27:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe the most appropriate thing at this point is to just e-mail Hadi
17:28:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: As for NVDA...
17:28:25 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I can see six conflicts
17:28:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Test 1, 2, and 12
17:28:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In test 1, Joe_Humbert and Louis are getting the same output
17:29:10 <jugglinmike> mmoss: We are getting the same output. Louis marked the "not selected" assertion as "passing," and I marked it as "failing"
17:30:43 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe this is a mistake in the test plan
17:31:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the "radio button" one, they do the same thing. They don't convey the "not selected" state.
17:31:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We got alignment with both Apple and Vispero on this: in certain situations, it's required to convey the "selected" state, but it's completely optional to convey the "not selected" state
17:32:01 <jugglinmike> James: I don't think that applies across-the-board on Windows
17:32:18 <jugglinmike> mmoss: I failed it because it's not conveyed
17:32:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think you're right
17:32:31 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: We should just change Louis's result
17:32:41 <jugglinmike> s/mmoss/Joe_Humbert/
17:33:20 <jugglinmike> James: for the second conflict, I think Louis interpreted the absence of "selected" to mean "not selected"
17:33:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's practically what it means, but it's not what we're specifically looking for here
17:33:57 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: For test 12, I passed the assertion that the "selected" state is conveyed, but Louis failed it. Our output is the same
17:34:06 <jugglinmike> James: That one, I have no explanation for
17:34:22 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: I'll correct his results to match yours
17:34:33 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Unfortunately, we have different results on test 13
17:34:57 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I get the name of the tab panel (I think) and that it's a "property page" which is weird. But it also reads out the contents of the tab panel for me, but it didn't do that for Louis
17:35:21 <jugglinmike> James: If it reads out the content, it may be switching to browse mode
17:35:32 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It probably will switch to browse mode if it was in focus mode
17:35:43 <jugglinmike> James: If a user has explicitly switch modes, then the auto-switching behavior is different
17:36:15 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: As a Tester, you want to make sure that you manually don't change it so that it does do the automatic switch
17:36:49 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is a little bit of an interesting twist in our test. We say that, to do it in focus mode, I always thought that means "the test starts in focus mode" not that "you force it to remain in focus mode after the command is pressed"
17:37:00 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We should let the AT do its automatic switching
17:37:18 <jugglinmike> James: The thing with NVDA is that there is no way to determine that you are starting in focus mode without toggling it
17:37:35 <jugglinmike> James: We instruct testers to "ensure" that they are in focus mode--not just to "observe"
17:38:08 <jugglinmike> James: If there was a keystroke that they could press to just query the mode and report that (without toggling it), then you would be achieving the goal of "ensuring" you are in the correct mode
17:38:26 <jugglinmike> Dean: I sent out an e-mail asking at what point you are switching modes when you start a test. This is the problem I had
17:38:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wonder if we should change those instructions a little bit. Ideally, "assuring" would actually be "listening to what happens when you press setup"
17:39:13 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I just re-tested, taking care not to switch modes, and it does read out the contents of the tab panel
17:40:01 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: If I force it out of focus mode and back in, it does not read the contents of the tab panel
17:41:06 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: So do we always trigger it?
17:41:16 <jugglinmike> James: We need to think about our approach to how we instruct people
17:41:58 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: There are some tests where it's in browse mode, and you have to manually toggle it into focus mode. Like where you're manually getting the information about something
17:42:11 <jugglinmike> James: That's fine. In NVDA, that should be consistent regardless
17:42:33 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: So if it's asking for focus mode, you shouldn't be toggling it on manually
17:42:47 <jugglinmike> James: But unless you do the toggling, you don't know for certain
17:43:10 <jugglinmike> James: If you don't verify something yourself, you don't know it to be true
17:43:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have a little bit of the problem in the instructions right now because we say that setup is automatically running the script--it doesn't
17:43:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Right now, we have three steps when we should have four
17:44:11 <jugglinmike> James: Would if help, given that most Testers have the "speech history" add-on, to also have an add-on to report the current mode
17:44:29 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I will say that I don't test with that tool; I just test with straight NVDA
17:45:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if we want to make it a requirement to have an add-on. We could, but...
17:45:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's not an add-on to change how NVDA behaves but just an add-on to assist in testing. I think it's legit
17:46:02 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: For this test case, what do we do to resolve the conflict?
17:46:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we should report it in the way that Louis did. We should not be manually toggling out and back in
17:46:55 <jugglinmike> James: Right, because realistically, we cannot really test this behavior of NVDA which may or may not be intentionally. Realistically, most of the time, people are going to be experiencing the mode-switching behavior that is the default rather than what we're seeing here
17:47:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, so we have the next step here. Joe_Humbert should modify his results
17:47:45 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: It looks like we have to copy Joe_Humbert's results to match Louis'
17:48:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Oh, okay, we're not changing Joe_Humbert's results. We're changing Louis's results
17:48:24 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Right
17:48:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, good good. Then we know the answer to all of these (basically: modify Louis' results)
17:49:08 <jugglinmike> Topic: Running Disclosure of Answers to Frequently Asked Questions test plan
17:50:11 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Louis raised issue #1282
17:50:30 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1282
17:50:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That could be a problem with the JAWS Bot
17:50:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We should manually verify whether or not that happens
17:51:40 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are five conflicts in the JAWS results
17:51:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ah, and NVDA is done, and there are no conflicts
17:52:27 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: There's an issue with the NVDA run
17:53:00 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Joe_Humbert says it should say to press the "up arrow" key three times instead of two times
17:53:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: And this is related to NVDA?
17:53:13 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I believe so
17:53:46 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: It's about "navigate backwards from here". With NVDA, we have it marked as two presses of the "up arrow" key
17:54:35 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: There are no conflicts because apparently Louis and I got the same output. But pressing the "up arrow" twice gets you to the expanded list item, but it doesn't actually get back to the button (which is what the test is trying to do)
17:55:14 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: We both failed the assertions for "name of button", "role of button" and "expanded"
17:55:32 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: There are no conflicts because we both got the same output and both failed the assertions
17:55:43 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I wondered if there is an extra arrow in there, if we wouldn't fail the assertions
17:56:22 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I assumed that the assertions from all the other ones is going back to the button. That's what it's attempting to do. But because this has the list boundary
17:56:36 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Ah, yes, so we have this wrong. We need three presses of the "up arrow" key
17:56:42 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: We should change this
17:57:17 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: I only did this because I re-tested the example, trying with the third up-arrow press, and it got to the button
17:57:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wonder if we should even bother with the "up arrow" command at all for this. I'm almost more tempted to remove it from all the screen readers
17:57:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have that text in between
17:58:17 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: If the link was right after the button for this test, that would be better, because that would only require one press of the "up arrow" key
17:58:45 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: Wouldn't that break the structure of the other tests if there's a button in the middle of the disclosure?
17:58:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ah, so we have the "navigate forward" and "navigate backwards" in the same place for all the tests
17:59:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I was thinking we could change it
17:59:30 <jugglinmike> James: The setup script can do anything. It can add controls to the page. I don't think we should go down that route, though
18:00:09 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I feel like this is one of these weird situations where if they change something else in the screen reader (like the line length), then we get into this situation. The fact that there are three key presses required is not very deterministic
18:00:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think it's better to remove the "up arrow" command in this case
18:01:03 <jugglinmike> Joe_Humbert: IsaDC, if you want to assign me to a few of the test plans which have bot runs, you can do that. Any ones you want
18:01:07 <jugglinmike> IsaDC: Thank you!
18:01:17 <jugglinmike> Dean: And give me anything other than JAWS
18:01:41 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
18:01:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jugglinmike, Joe_Humbert, IsaDC, howard-e, carmen, james, mmoss, dean, kelly, Matt_King
18:01:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/27-aria-at-minutes.html Zakim
18:01:51 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:01:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-at
18:27:59 <mfairchild> mfairchild has joined #aria-at
19:32:46 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
19:32:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items