Document our Working Mode about aria-at HOT 10 CLOSED

@mcking65 @mfairchild365 can you review this?

from aria-at.

Yep, I'll add comments in the doc. Might be good to discuss on the CG call too.

from aria-at.

I've made changes based on feedback from @mcking65. Please review.

Also I've moved an idea about web content research to APG: w3c/aria-practices#1348

A snapshot of the current revision of the document is also available in HTML format in www-archive.

from aria-at.

@zcorpan, this is coming along very well.

I'd like to make some more fairly significant revisions to the process section. I tried doing it in the google doc, and that just doesn't work for me. So, I am attaching a word doc with my proposal for the process section.

Additionally:

• I think it might read better if we change "AT Implementer" to "AT Developer".
• I think we need to separate APG Task Force from ARIA WG in the roles even though the TF is part of the WG, there are separate repos and thus separate places to file issues.

I'd like to get a final draft of the roles and process before going on to make revisions to the subsequent sections.
Process section of ARIA-AT CG Working Mode.docx

from aria-at.

Thank you, @mcking65. I have incorporated your edits in the google doc. I've also changed to AT developer and added the APG Task Force role.

from aria-at.

@mcking65

(Test developer) Implement the test in WPT format

At this stage, these tests aren't in web-platform-tests, and don't have the same format. So I think we shouldn't use "WPT format" wording, to avoid confusion.

from aria-at.

I have added a Definitions section based on #102 (comment) - and added a few more definitions. I've gone through the working mode document to make sure it's using these terms as appropriate.

I also added new steps in the process for handling feedback.

from aria-at.

@zcorpan commented:

(Test developer) Implement the test in WPT format

At this stage, these tests aren't in web-platform-tests, and don't have the same format. So I think we shouldn't use "WPT format" wording, to avoid confusion.

They need to be in wpt format and on the aria-at web site site in the review section before AT devs can review them. And, per our earlier discussion, this is where it is important there is some level of GitHub integration so the AT dev can very quickly and easily create a useful issue with all the right info.

Perhaps you are thinking of internal peer reviews among test devs. You might add that as a subbullet under step 5 as part of test development. Currently, we are doing the peer reviews with in the CG in CSV format only because we do not yet have a test composer. That is an implementation detail that the document does not have to address.

from aria-at.

I have now moved this to the wiki: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/wiki/Working-Mode

from aria-at.

As discussed in the call today, I've updated some terms:

I also added "partial test cycle", which is an arbitrary subset of full test cycle. This could be used for re-running a specific test plan or a specific browser/AT combination.

from aria-at.