Meeting minutes
Review agenda and next meeting dates
Next meeting will be on April 22 at the usual time
Current interop reporting status
mk: I already moved the plans in CR to google sheet about meetings with AT vendors
(https: //docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pvnIOTpbR5QtFIW7IvXTpIJsCEgeSmhbcefVbg00bpM/edit?usp=sharing)
mk: 5 plans in draft review, 2 active
mk: want to get simple data grid into draft review, blocked by netlify issue (w3c/
Nicholas cook: I tried to look at the issue. Needs someone with access to Netlify
mk: will ask Daniel or others from w3c team to look into it
Celebrate Windows bot fix!
mk: windows bots have been down since December, Nicholas fixed, Chris merged, Matt tested. Thank you Nicholas!
Nicholas Cage: Thanks also to Westin from Assistive Labs
Execution of quantity spin button test plan
test plan * Current version: Quantity Spin Button Example Test Plan V25.12.16
mk: joe is signed up to test JAWS, need another JAWS tester
MK asks Hadi, coordinating schedules
Hadi: Can do testing, will not often be able to come to this meeting time
mk: Pls test with JAWS 2025 so it's the same as the bot run
mk: NVDA 2025.3 conflicting result between Joe and Dean.
Joe: did that on purpose so we could talk about it
Joe: When you run with NVDA, 2 assertions convey minium and maximum value, which it does, but only in the error message. If the control didn't have an error, the info wouldn't be conveyed. Is that a failure?
mk: if the error wasn't present, min and mix weren't conveyed. The error gets conveyed, but no the min and max.
mk: priority of htose assertions later in agenda
mk: The test fails those assertions.
Joe: I will respond to Dean that min/max are not conveyed as attributes on controls.
mk: this is why we have humans who know what they're doing
mk: VoiceOver conflicts. Dean and Murray have different output. Neither is present today
mk: we're down to 1 conflict
Joe: I also have info on that one
Joe: Dean asked me to run the conflict test (6) on older Mac and one with MacOS, Safari, VS are 26.3.1 When I used that combo, I got the same result as Murry
mk: Was quicknav off?
Joe: yes
mk: That's a big regression in VO!
Joe: Dean was still getting some of these issue with his version.
Joe: Dean was getting correct info, Murray and I were geting 0%
Joe: with ctrl-option-down-arrow some info was announced, not %
Joe: Dean may change his results
mk: should he?
Joe: Dean may have upgraded
Joe: Murray has test 6 not complete, so conflict doesn't show
mk: NVDA conflict page changed too?
Joe: Dean changed his results to FAIL
(debugging happens)
Joe: it's waiting on my submission to show conflicts
mk: that's a strange behavior of the tool
Joe: Murry needs to save his results to make the conflict show
mk: may be a bug that we need to show the it's not complete in the status table
mk: will try to repro in staging environment
mk: looks like we have a path forward. Hadi testing JAWS, Joe breaking ties
Assertion priority discussion for spinner test 4
<Matt_King> GITHUB: w3c/
mk: Raised this issue when reviewing NVDA conflicts in quantitiy spin button plan.
mk: you have a spin button that allows input of invalid value by typing. When you do that, an error message appears that tells you how to correct the problem. In that circumstance, there are 3 assertions...
mk: 1 assertion is that screen reader will announce error message, 2 convey min value, 3 convey max value
mk: in the other tests in the test plan, conveying min/max is a P2/should. But in this circumstance, we might have made a mistake when setting the priority to 1
mk: seems problematic that screen-reader conveying both error message and min/max
mk: normally error message that says value is invalid should tell the user how it's invalid
mk: we should consider whether min/max should be SHOULD or MAY for screen reader
mk: NVDA does not convey min/max consistently in any tests
mk: JAWS does not convey min/max in that circumstance, but does in others
mk: will get input from sr developers, but does the group have an option
Hadi: maybe range could be in instructions instead of making min/max required. I like to hear it with the error message, but should it be required? Might get a complaint if it's in isntructions. I'm for MAY, but persnally I think it should be SHOULd
mk: question: example spin button, there isn't a requirement in WCAG or APT that you have to describe the range, because you've specified with aria-value-min and aria-value-max. expectation that screen reader will take advantage of those. But this one also has aria-invalid=true
mk: what does wcag say about case where aria-invalid is true and spin button doesn't have an error, would that be a WCAG failure
Joe: yes
3.3.1
Joe: "...the error is described in text"
mk: is it good enough if the error says "the value is out of range" would you fail it?
Joe: I would probably fail it for input eero suggestions
that is AA SHOULD
3.3.1 Error Identification and 3.3.3 Error Suggestion are the relevant WCAG requirements
<loren> I have to head out a little early, please let know when the engineer bot training sessions is.
mk: If you have a WCAG-compliant spin button. Our SR requirements always assume that the control complies with WCAG. would it be redundant to require SR to do that?
Joe: There's no WCAG requirement that the range be provided. As Hadi said, there are usability needs
mk: we can reduce priority of exposing min/max to 3 where there is an error message present and it's aria-invalid
mk: because the WCAG-compliant error message would give the suggestion
Joe: I think it should still be a SHOULD based on the being a usability need
mk: if the spinner and its error message are WCAG compliant, then you don't need to convey the min/max because the WCAG-compliant error message would say it
mk: We are at time. Please look at the other issues assynchronously