See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 October 2013
<janina> Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference
Janina notes that times begin to shift, starting next week due to daylight saving changes in various countries. Be mindful of the time changes.
Janina: at least one night is
fully booked at the hotel; nearby hotels are available however.
Those who haven't booked a room should do so promptly.
... visa requirements have changed in the last few months; take
note.
... a draft agenda should be posted before the next meeting,
and will focus on IndieUI Events as it moves toward Last Call.
Requirements for User Contexts are also to be considered.
Janina notes that phone participation is possible, but the time difference could be problematic for some participants.
Further, a conference phone is expected to be available.
<andy> Editor not here so Jason doing a pull on the repository
<andy> no updates
Jason updates his checkout of the Mercurial repository and notes that there have been no changes since 22 August.
Janina notes that James has been occupied with other responsibilities.
Michael: no updates to action items.
Janina notes that we need to publish requirements (in some form) before Last Call.
Michael ascertains that he has an open action to propose a structure for the requirements, but no actions affecting their content.
Action to all participants: read events requirements prior to the next meeting, in which they'll be reviewed in detail.
<trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/users>.
<MichaelC> action-57 due 8 November
<trackbot> Set action-57 Consider helpfocusrequest and mainfocusrequest in addition to toolbarfocusrequest and palettefocusrequest due date to 2013-11-08.
<MichaelC> action-67 due 8 November
<trackbot> Set action-67 Make a proposal for formalizing indieui requirements due date to 2013-11-08.
It is suggested that the requirements should be published a month before Last Call (for Events). Suggested dates: early December and January respectively.
<MichaelC> action-57 due 27 June
<trackbot> Set action-57 Consider helpfocusrequest and mainfocusrequest in addition to toolbarfocusrequest and palettefocusrequest due date to 2013-06-27.
Testing is a topic for the TPAC meeting agenda, and aside from any preliminary work, much of the discussion will take place there regarding next steps.
Janina notes Jason's posts to the list concerning requirements.
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/mid/20131002082353.GA14514@jdc.jasonjgw.net
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/mid/6BCD4AFE-AB3C-45E5-8B95-7059AC826E4E@apple.com
<andy> Jason taking the group through his approach
<andy> questions on criteria for inclusion of a preference in the spec
<andy> questions are in the URI for Jason's email a few lines back
Janina asks whether this is a good set of questions. Is there anything missing?
<andy> IS it a useful set of questions ?
Michael considers it's a good set of questions but his response to item 1 would result in the addition of questions to the list.
<andy> Michael - may need additional questions to narrow down for 1.0
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/mid/20130918233138.GA8059@jdc.jasonjgw.net
<andy> Jason's earlier post (see URI) is the general criteria
<andy> the questions recently posted are just about getting preferences in and out
<andy> will process the most recent email then return to the general post
<andy> James: we are not getting feedback from external groups because we are no longer associated with another group and may need to be associated with web-apps or css
<andy> james some of the preferences may be better dealt with as media queries
James would like to encourage other associated working groups to work jointly with us in this area. He notes the relevance, for example, of CSS media queries. Many of the items could be moved to Media Queries, leaving the role of User Contexts as that of providing an API and a means of access control. If any of this were to happen, it would transform the scope of User Context discussions.
<andy> james: doing it that way we can separate the prefs that have privacy implications from ones that dont
He notes that there is currently a media query for monochrome that can reflect operating system preferences.
<andy> james: many of the prefs could map to media queries
<andy> michael: overlap between what we might define and what those groups (web apps and media queires) might define
Michael acknowledges potential overlap with Media Queries, and also the work of the Web Applications wg. We should collaborate; this need not require a formally constituted joint taskforce with those groups.
Janina notes the importance of shared ownership of the resulting technology.
Michael concurs.
Andy emphasizes the importance of interoperability with other work in the needs/preferences area.
Janina indicates that the features of 1.0 can be expected to be constrained, but implementation of them opens the way to a very robust 2.0 version.
Andy is concerned about interoperability with what search engines are starting to provide for resource discovery.
He again emphasizes the importance of interoperability among the various efforts in this area.
Janina notes the importance of this issue.
Michael notes that CSS and Web Applications are meeting at TPAC, hence collaboration could be discussed at the meeting.
James proposes to start the discussion (e.g., with CSS) before TPAC.
He proposes to start discussing media query proposals individually.
Michael notes that if some of the needs/preferences are integrated into different APIs/CSS features, we'll need to track them all carefully.
Jason's question 1: James would answer yes, because we need two interoperable implementations and it would be a mistake to enter CR before these implementations are in place.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to speak to question 1 and to speak about group structure
Michael generally agrees, while noting that the implementations can be completed at the CR stage; features can be declared as at risk.
There is a risk (in the process) that a spec would need to be returned to Last Call.
Janina: if there is assurance of implementation by Last Call then that may/should? be sufficient.
Question 2: it seems we should answer it similarly to question 1.
Michael notes the need for two implementations and that consensus (as to what user agents are doing by way of implementation) is also very relevant.
James suggests that adding features to Media Queries (which are already implemented by UAs) is a convenient and effective path to interoperable implementations.
Michael notes that we can have a comprehensive set of requirements, some of which can be met by external specs (provides these are tracked appropriately).
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/not/no/ Succeeded: s/reposiroty/repository/g Succeeded: s/liens/lines/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jasonjgw Inferring Scribes: jasonjgw Default Present: +1.212.261.aaaa, andy, Michael_Cooper, Jason_White, Janina_Sajka, Rich_Simpson, jcraig Present: +1.212.261.aaaa andy Michael_Cooper Jason_White Janina_Sajka Rich_Simpson jcraig Found Date: 02 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-indie-ui-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]