Alternative Input as a core feature of PhET simulations

zepumph commented 2 years ago

Discussed today during Q4 planning, @kathy-phet mentioned that she wants this (and thinks it is close) to be included in pretty much every new sim. Let's make sure this is up to standards, with good documentation, exemplars, and patterns associated with it.

@kathy-phet thougth the first place to start was with a meeting to discuss the game plan.

zepumph commented 2 years ago

The quarterly goal says:

All devs | Group meeting to advance this to be a standardly integrated feature -- | --

Marking for dev meeting!

jbphet commented 2 years ago

This was discussed during the 10/21/2021 developer meeting, and we didn't reach a full resolution, but here are some thoughts:

Can we have a different name for the flag used in package.json other than supportsInteractiveDescription? I mean, like, a rose is a rose and all that, but it's kind of odd that this is the flag for turning on alternative input, and it's entirely possible that we'd add this flag to a sim and then not add interactive description at all. Maybe something more general? pdomEnabled? See https://github.com/phetsims/scenery/issues/1302
The documentation is not well suited to the use case where a developer just needs to add alternative input.
Having said all of this, none of we developers feel like they have the bandwidth to really jump into it and improve the situation this quarter. It's a bit of a struggle to add these features at this point, but we're still able to get the job done, it just involves a lot of asking people questions (and thus taking up their time).
We'll discuss this more in the next dev meeting.

samreid commented 2 years ago

We discussed this today. @pixelzoom has been making a quick start guide in https://github.com/phetsims/phet-info/issues/168. He also opened several issues as he worked on geometric optics. It was said that some of those issues may need to wait until next quarter, but the sim will be done before that.

@pixelzoom: There are other sim-specific gaps that have to be balanced with the support. How will we make sure the issues are addressed in a timely manner so we can hit the sim milestones? Same with sound.

@zepumph: I could devote some 2-4 hours each week to working on these issues. Would that help? @pixelzoom: Geometric Optics may be published at the end of next quarter. We punted on several things and need them again for geometric optics. Are we punting again or adding that now? Why would we do UI sound if we can only do 1/2 the controls? @jbphet: I'm adding a sonified slider to greenhouse now. It's difficult working on this common code since it is unclear which grant funds it, but I have an opportunity to work on this slider for greenhouse now. @pixelzoom: I can understand why we don't have time to work on this common code now, but then why do we have upcoming sim milestones that require these features? @zepumph Have the design teams mentioned the toolbox? @pixelzoom: The designers are overloaded and only able to respond to high-priority things at the moment. It's frustrating to implement something important right away and have to wait several weeks for feedback.

@zepumph I'm curious what common code is needed for geometric optics. @pixelzoom The toolbox stuff is the main thing at the moment. But that is in the designer's court at the moment. @arouinfar and @terracoda. We could probably publish the sim without it, but then someone won't be able to use the rulers. @zepumph Yes, a11y is about progressive improvements, we should strive to make it better and not necessarily wait for everything before publishing. @jbphet Yes, I've heard others say some is better than none. Users of this technology are used to it being incomplete and that's OK. @zepumph Yes, I agree. I'll reach out to @arouinfar about the toolbox to see if it is in scope for geometric optics.

@pixelzoom: When we add slider sounds, we will want to revisit prior sims like Fourier. This will warrant a new QA cycle. Filling the gaps in the first version can be more efficient.

pixelzoom commented 2 years ago

Why is this in the "done" column of the Developer Meeting project board? It's still open.

zepumph commented 2 years ago

Because the quarterly goal was to bring this to dev meeting for an initial discussion. No further steps are needed at this time from the devs. It seems like my understanding of "Done" is different from others, so I'll go ahead and remove this from the Project altogether to prevent further confusion.

jessegreenberg commented 2 years ago

I tried to add to the project board but ended up changing the issue title, changing it back.

samreid commented 2 years ago

Which project board do we want to add this to? I'm confused.

jessegreenberg commented 2 years ago

I don't really know how the project board works, I thought I could add a second issue to this row in the project board

But clicking in that cell and editing changes the title of the issue. Thats how we momentarily had a title like

Alternative Input as a core feature of PhET simulations, https://github.com/phetsims/phet-info/issues/188

phetsims / scenery

Alternative Input as a core feature of PhET simulations #1298