RE: MINUTES: 15 April 2020 ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Teleconference



Thank you for scribing! I like how you got the HTML formatted minutes into
the email itself. How did you do that? Was it as simple as copy all and


BTW, if anyone needs the link to the minutes page, it is:

The link below was to issue 158.





From: Gunderson, Jon R <> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 1:04 PM
Subject: MINUTES: 15 April 2020 ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community
Group Teleconference






ARIA and Assistive Technologies Community Group Teleconference

15 Apr 2020



Matt_King, zcorpan, michael_fairchild, jongund, isaacdurazo, shimizuyohta,
Jemma, s3ththompson, Joe_Humbert



Matt King




*	Topics <>  

1.	Test Refactor check box
2.	Satus on test plans check box
3.	Proposal for simplifying user interface and test cycle
administration check box

*	Summary of Action Items
*	Summary of Resolutions


<Jemma> Scribe?

<Jon_Gunderson> scribe: jongund

Test Refactor check box

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Checkbox, was this about the pull request


<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I have this pretty much ready to go

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I got your comments....


<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I have pushed commits to PR 149

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I fixed some issues, remaining issue, when you break
tests than run npm start we are getting a 404 error


<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I think it is a configuration issue

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: There is stuff in the HTML file are in the CSV file

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: There are some blockers to moving to a single HTML for
all tests

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Those references should be part of the JSON file

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We will be referencing more than the ARIA spec, we will
have refs to HTML and other specs

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: There might be another base URL

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: It would be really good that when you covering a role,
state or propeorty that there would be references that would convert to URLs

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Tha makes sense

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: The only other part, we still merge PR 131

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I don't have permissions to merge yet

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I will check with MC

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: There seems to be merge conflicts

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I do not see one

<Jon_Gunderson> SF: It says it cannot merge due to conflicts

<Jon_Gunderson> SF: Maybe we need to squashed

<Jon_Gunderson> SF: What is the status of this PR

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I am OK with it

<Jon_Gunderson> SF: I will merge

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Yohta thank you for working on this

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is there any thing else on 145?

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: The next step is SP will reach out to Valarie

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: We will look into the 404 error

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is everything that needs to be covered covered?

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Can we find out from Valarie if there is more that we
need to do?

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I can do that

Satus on test plans check box

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Once 131 is merged, will the latest test, will the page, everything should be up-to-date

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I just merged 131

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: At this point we should be ready to review in the

<Jon_Gunderson> JG: I believe so

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We have two things, the simple checkbox example, maybe
today or tomorrow morning

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: In order to get a test plan we can use the current
checkbox plan less the grouping tests

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: The other thing is how we want to state the assertions
for the grouping labels

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: After discussions with AT vendors, I think we need some

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Discussing the grouping label should be on the agenda
for next week

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We could put a TODO item in checkbox issue 52

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Is 52 about the group checkbox, we probably need to
chenge the label

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We will have a simple checkbox, grouped checkbox and a
tri-state checkbox

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Discuss assertions related to group, role and name

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I would like to talk about it next week

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: For other test plans

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Are they converted to the latest test plan

<Jon_Gunderson> JG: The test plan for menubar editor has not been reviewed
by the group at all

<Jon_Gunderson> JG: PR 131 has updates to all the current tests

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: We need to review all the assertions for menubar-editor

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: Issue 54 is the one for menubar

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: All you have to do is put the issue in the card

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I will do that

<Jon_Gunderson> JK: Issue 74, what is it about?

<Jon_Gunderson> JK: Jon said it could be closed

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: According to the project board we are on step 6

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: The same thing with editor menubar

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: Which combobox are we testing?

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Autocomplete both

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: These do not have the level of documentation, we have
written the plans, we did the research, but did not document it

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: Should we concern ourselves

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: I don't know, but I don't think we should due to

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: What will probably do is provide feedback in the issues
and that will document some of our research

<Jon_Gunderson> MF: You want me to research and documentation

<Jon_Gunderson> SP: I created an issue and assigned it to MK


<Jon_Gunderson> MK: In coverting the card to an issue, create an issue and
then put the issue in the card

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: DUring this week, I get the simple checkbox ready for

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: For the existing checkbox, we can do the review
asynchronously, I can start that

<Jon_Gunderson> MK: I don't thimk I will have time for menubar, but people
can start to add comments

SP: I think we wanted to next week
... May 4th to May 8th


MK: I think we can send off one checkbox and then getting menubar/combobox
... Let's get one done, so we can share the checkbox plan by the end of next
... Hopefully both plans, let's try to do asynchornously
... Issue 54

xakim, next item

Proposal for simplifying user interface and test cycle administration check

MK: This is a super long issue


MK: This is not a simple issue to discuss without reading the issue
... Let's address the comments currently in the issue
... I was thinking about how to simplify the user interface for the tester,
this is my attempt to explain, using user stories
... If you read the issue
... There are to ideas, the runner is the only place you fill out or edit
... If you were an admin you could open the test plans, and change results
... How many results there are and any conflicts, status of review and
... The final idea having a quick and dirty way to find differences between
... There would be feedback on differences from other testers and what are
the differences
... There would be able to copy difference information
... There would be a way to either update your results, or raise an issue
... Simon you were asking about skill levels
... I think zero, people should be able to copy

SP: I think the bigger concern is wether that result is valid or should be

MK: If you are a brand new tester, you could send the difference information
to a mentor
... So those types of discussions should be easy
... We need to find people who have some confidence in the tests or knowing
when they migh not be
... We can compare with AT vendor results

MF: To Simons concern about assuptions
... I hesitate a little in putting so much trust that 2 people doing it
... May it is a safe, but my experience makes that hard to believe

MK: The testers don't have a vested interest in just copying results
... Testers can just keep going, they don't need to check with other people

MF: OK, people don't have to agree or raise an issue, they can just keep

MK: The system will keep track of all the differences, and admins can review
and make decisions on what to do
... Admins will have to run the system anyway to see what the issue is
... The admin can have features to help them to quickly switch between test

JK: I like 2 more than 1

MK: They are noth things that can happen

JK: I like the ability of the admin

MK: The big issue is if people do not understand the test plan, so I have
not addressed that here

SP: If the system results to exist, we need an index page of the conflicts

MK: That would be built--in to the test cue, it is has a filter

SP: That seems good

JK: When does this need to be done?

SP: We need to have an agreement on how this should work as soon as possible

<jongund_> rrasagent, draft minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]


Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's
scribe.perl <>
version 1.154 (CVS log <> )
$Date: 2020/04/15 19:58:30 $ 

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at
Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/thinks/things/
Present: Matt_King zcorpan michael_fairchild jongund isaacdurazo
shimizuyohta Jemma s3ththompson Joe_Humbert
Found Scribe: jongund
Inferring ScribeNick: jongund
WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002
People with action items: 
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl
<>  diagnostic


Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2020 22:15:39 UTC