Proposal for new terminology for the phenomena we currently call "undesirable behaviors" or "Other behaviors with negative impact"

[mcking65]

The current wording and presentation still seems verbose and easy to misunderstand.

The assertion statements are:

Other behaviors that create severe negative-impacts are not exhibited

Other behaviors that create moderate negative-impacts are not exhibited

I'd like to propose we call these behaviors "negative side effects" of a command.

So, I propose assertion statement form of:

Severe negative side effects do not occur

Moderate negative side effects do not occur

or in assertion phrase format:

Not cause severe negative side effects

Not cause moderate negative side effects

Thus, an example of a sentence that incorporates the assertion phrase for a test would be:

JAWS MUST not cause severe negative side effects.

The sentence in the collection form is now something like:

Were there other undesirable behaviors?

It would change to:

Did negative side effects occur?

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA-AT Community Group just discussed Proposal to change terminology used for undesirable behaviors.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Topic: Proposal to change terminology used for undesirable behaviors
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1043
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm having a hard time not thinking more and more about the wording of this and wanting to simplify it further
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: One of the problems I have here is with the phrase "other behaviors"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: That phrase means you have to read all the other assertions. If you read the assertion out of context, it's not clear what it means
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I was thinking of calling these other behaviors "negative side effects"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We'd have an assertion for "Severe negative side-effects do not occur" and "Moderate negative side-effects do not occur"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wonder if other people find that simpler
<jugglinmike> Hadi: When we talk about "negative side effect", I'm not sure we defined what "negative effect means"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have a list of them in the test form. things like "excess verbosity", "sluggish behavior", "crashing", and even a text entry field where Testers can explain in some other behavior
<jugglinmike> Hadi: When we say, "excess verbosity", do we have a kind of guidance where "excess" begins?
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we're currently relying on peer review for that
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's why we have two people running tests. If one person classified something as "excessive" and another person did not, then that would cause a conflict which we would subsequently discuss in this meeting
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'd love more feedback on this issue--please post it as a reply. I'm trying to improve the clarity for the reports.
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We can continue this discussion next week, of course
<jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA-AT Community Group just discussed Proposal to change terminology used for undesirable behaviors.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Topic: Proposal to change terminology used for undesirable behaviors
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: GitHub issue Proposal for new terminology for the phenomena we currently call "undesirable behaviors" or "Other behaviors with negative impact" · Issue #1043
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-at/issues/1043
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have wording for additional behaviors which are undesirable: "Other behaviors that create severe negative-impacts are not exhibited" and "Other behaviors that create moderate negative-impacts are not exhibited"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: There's been a little bit of confusion over the fact that we say "Other behaviors"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: That has to be interpreted in the context of the behaviors that we assert
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I was thinking that we might be able to make these statements more clear
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We might switch from "negative impacts" to "negative side-effects"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I looked through the list of things that we currently classify as "negative impacts", and to me, it sounds like they could all be called "negative side-effects"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then the assertions would read, "Severe negative side-effects do not occur", or "Moderate negative side-effects do not occur"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Do other folks feel like this would be an improvement?
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: It works for me
<jugglinmike> Alyssa_Gourley: That would be clear to me, too.
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm thinking about when we put this in the reports. For someone who isn't familiar with the testing, when they see "severe negative side-effects did not occur" or "moderate negative side effects did not occur", and those both pass. It seems like that would be clear to me
<jugglinmike> Michael_Fairchild: That sounds like it makes sense. I'm a little concerned about complexity, but I don't have a better solution
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: To be clear, we already have all of this implemented, I'm just talking about changing the wording
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll take the next action on this