IRC log of apps on 2016-07-20
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:01:15 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #apps
- 13:01:15 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apps-irc
- 13:01:17 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #apps
- 13:02:52 [Max]
- Max has joined #apps
- 13:03:38 [Ian]
- present+ Andre
- 13:03:40 [Ian]
- present+ Ian
- 13:03:44 [Ian]
- present+ Kapeng
- 13:03:46 [Ian]
- present+ Dapeng
- 13:03:48 [Ian]
- present+ Jason
- 13:03:53 [Ian]
- present+ Conor
- 13:04:02 [Ian]
- present+ Mahesh
- 13:04:10 [conorh_wp]
- conorh_wp has joined #apps
- 13:04:17 [alyver]
- alyver has joined #apps
- 13:05:02 [Kepeng]
- Kepeng has joined #apps
- 13:05:23 [Ian]
- topic: New time
- 13:05:25 [Ian]
- this is it!
- 13:05:30 [maheshkk]
- maheshkk has joined #apps
- 13:06:28 [Ian]
- topic: FTF feedback or impressions?
- 13:07:10 [Ian]
- IJ: Any thoughts on the meeting? Key topics?
- 13:07:37 [Ian]
- [No speakers]
- 13:08:10 [Ian]
- topic: Issues
- 13:08:17 [Ian]
- New repo -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api
- 13:08:25 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues
- 13:08:28 [conorh_wp]
- +q
- 13:08:36 [Ian]
- ack conor
- 13:08:54 [Ian]
- conor: I also sent comments / issues
- 13:08:59 [Ian]
- ...is email sufficient?
- 13:11:38 [Ian]
- Topic: #1 Should merchants be able to limit matching to trusted apps?
- 13:11:47 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues/1
- 13:12:05 [Ian]
- present+ JasonYoung
- 13:14:55 [Ian]
- IJ: Any initial reactions?
- 13:15:17 [Max]
- q+
- 13:15:18 [Ian]
- Andre: Merchants want to know exactly what the experience will be like otherwise they will bypass the mechanism.
- 13:15:36 [alyver]
- q+
- 13:15:47 [Ian]
- ...users may have a hard time knowing even what a payment app is, so the experience has to be good
- 13:15:50 [Ian]
- ack Max
- 13:16:14 [Ian]
- Max: I think I agree with the point. Nowadays, merchants who work with Aliababa...we have a trust relationships with them
- 13:16:32 [Ian]
- ...as you mentioned, for card payments, it's not sure how to establish the trust relationship
- 13:16:37 [Ian]
- ...so I think it's a valid concern
- 13:16:52 [jnormore]
- lol
- 13:17:41 [Ian]
- Andre: Echoing what Jason said, there is concern about ensuring the checkout experience though payment apps is as good as it can be
- 13:18:07 [Ian]
- ...from a merchant perspective, question is "is a customer going to install an app from a third party"?
- 13:18:45 [jnormore]
- q+
- 13:18:45 [Ian]
- ...it's not clear how people will know that a payment app (e.g., from some payment service provider) has to be installed in order to check out with a merchant
- 13:19:27 [Ian]
- ack jno
- 13:19:30 [Ian]
- ack aly
- 13:19:59 [Ian]
- jnormore: Merchants want to increase conversion...the more options customers have, conversion drops
- 13:20:12 [alyver]
- agree
- 13:20:12 [Ian]
- ...the option to install multiple payment apps for the same type of payment will lower conversion
- 13:20:19 [Ian]
- ...in particular for first-time experience
- 13:20:38 [Ian]
- ..it's a huge deal for smaller merchants who don't have as many returning customers
- 13:20:50 [Ian]
- q?
- 13:22:24 [Ian]
- IJ: Should we just have merchant preferences that might affect ordering or should we have merchant preferences that affect filtering?
- 13:22:41 [maheshkk]
- q+
- 13:22:45 [Ian]
- ack mach
- 13:22:47 [Ian]
- ack mah
- 13:23:08 [Ian]
- maheshkk: For the merchant, whether they recommend or prefer an app, it still doesn't tell me that the user has an app
- 13:23:28 [Ian]
- ...if none are available, it's still no good for the merchant
- 13:23:36 [Ian]
- ...merchant may still want a discovery mechanism
- 13:24:07 [Ian]
- q+ to talk about related topic of query API
- 13:24:50 [Ian]
- ..I still come back to the same question asked previously - should merchants have a way to discover whether a payment app is available?
- 13:25:28 [Ian]
- ack me
- 13:25:28 [Zakim]
- Ian, you wanted to talk about related topic of query API
- 13:25:29 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/159
- 13:26:43 [alyver]
- Also this issue: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/155
- 13:28:06 [Ian]
- The coding looks like this:
- 13:28:12 [Ian]
- * Browser support API? If no then fail
- 13:28:17 [Ian]
- * User have any apps? If no then fail
- 13:28:28 [Ian]
- * payment request API? If no then fail, otherwise user select
- 13:30:49 [Ian]
- (Related: displaying recommended apps, and how installed recommended apps v. uninstalled are displayed)?
- 13:31:16 [Ian]
- IJ: Do we need a flow diagram?
- 13:31:32 [conorh_wp]
- +q
- 13:32:13 [Ian]
- Mahesh: I would also like to be able to answer the question "Can they pay with my app?" with privacy protection. That would be useful.
- 13:32:15 [Ian]
- ack cono
- 13:32:22 [Ian]
- conorh_wp: Yes, I think the picture is coming together.
- 13:32:29 [Ian]
- ...I think a flow diagram would definitely be useful.
- 13:32:48 [Ian]
- ...The concept of a payment app is alien to consumers. Have we addressed that at all?
- 13:33:02 [Ian]
- ...I think users may not care about payment apps...they just want to use credit cards in their wallet.
- 13:33:03 [Ian]
- q+
- 13:33:03 [jnormore]
- q+
- 13:33:08 [Ian]
- ack jno
- 13:33:33 [Ian]
- jnormore: I have had the same thought. From a customer perspective, they want to choose the payment method (card, paypal, slippery, etc.)
- 13:33:37 [Ian]
- s/slippery/alipay
- 13:34:15 [Ian]
- ...so we show "pay with credit card" and then send users off to a page
- 13:34:21 [Ian]
- ...we also show user-friendly brands
- 13:34:27 [Ian]
- ...so is the registration model even necessary?
- 13:34:45 [Ian]
- ..if it's up to the merchants to control what payment apps are visible, is the registration model hurting us?
- 13:35:37 [Ian]
- IJ: Good topic - how to make registration as smooth as possible (near automatic)?
- 13:35:49 [Ian]
- ack me
- 13:37:29 [Ian]
- q?
- 13:38:20 [Ian]
- IJ: Anyone want to work on a flow diagram?
- 13:38:29 [Ian]
- (of how user selects payment apps, and possible queries?)
- 13:38:46 [Ian]
- topic: Issue 2 - What portion of the PaymentRequest is sent to the payment app?
- 13:40:06 [Jason]
- Jason has joined #apps
- 13:40:25 [conorh_wp]
- +q
- 13:40:47 [Ian]
- IJ: Proposed that we only send the subset of payment request data that is relevant to the payment app
- 13:40:49 [Ian]
- ack conor
- 13:41:04 [Ian]
- conorh_wp: Would merchants ever send transaction-specific data for the processor?
- 13:41:10 [Ian]
- (via tha payment app)
- 13:41:23 [Ian]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-payment-request-20160705/#paymentrequest-constructor
- 13:43:18 [Ian]
- IJ: You can send data, but if the data is not "standardized" you don't interop
- 13:45:05 [Ian]
- IJ: Proposed that we only send the subset of payment request data that is relevant to the select payment app
- 13:45:14 [conorh_wp]
- +1
- 13:45:25 [maheshkk]
- +1
- 13:45:29 [jnormore]
- +1
- 13:45:37 [Ian]
- ACTION: Ian to report back to the issues list that there were no objections to the proposal
- 13:45:53 [Ian]
- Topic: Conor's email
- 13:45:57 [Ian]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Jul/0048.html
- 13:48:09 [Ian]
- IJ: From merchant perspective, might have a range from "origin only" to "url to identify specific version"
- 13:48:18 [Ian]
- IJ: From payment app perspective, that can be left to the payment app
- 13:48:33 [Ian]
- ...if you allow payment app to query registration information
- 13:49:00 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PaymentApp_Notes
- 13:50:46 [Ian]
- IJ: the more we have merchants wanting to specify app preferences, the more some might want versioning
- 13:50:52 [Ian]
- conor: but that increases coupling which we may not want
- 13:51:11 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues/1
- 13:51:14 [Ian]
- could add a note there
- 13:52:11 [Ian]
- For suggestions, please do pull requests against the spec
- 13:53:07 [Ian]
- Is there a reason .unregister(“request_url”) has not been proposed? => pull request please
- 13:53:09 [maheshkk]
- +1 unregister()
- 13:57:09 [Ian]
- [On registration and launch of native app]
- 13:57:26 [Ian]
- IJ: Can have standard registration approach (using web) but launching may just be about good practice documentation
- 14:00:01 [Ian]
- Topic: Requirements
- 14:00:08 [Ian]
- topic: Design principles
- 14:03:48 [AdrianHB]
- q+ to ask what these are for payment request, an example would help
- 14:04:23 [Ian]
- IJ: I mean something like "A user should be able to use any payment app for a given payment method"
- 14:04:27 [Ian]
- ack AdrianHB
- 14:04:28 [Zakim]
- AdrianHB, you wanted to ask what these are for payment request, an example would help
- 14:04:34 [Ian]
- AdrianHB: Did we do that for payment request API?
- 14:05:14 [Ian]
- https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/WPWG-FTF-Feb-2016-Requirements
- 14:06:11 [Ian]
- IJ: We did that for PMIs. Not for payment request API AFAIK
- 14:06:17 [Ian]
- ..it was used for PMIs and I think useful
- 14:07:36 [AdrianHB]
- +1 for sincere engagement
- 14:08:20 [Ian]
- I Propose to take a stab at this for our meeting next week
- 14:09:00 [Ian]
- ..to clarify, I don't want the task force to stop working on the spec
- 14:09:35 [Ian]
- AdrianHB: I want to avoid going around in circles
- 14:10:27 [Ian]
- IJ: I am looking for new ways to engage others and volunteering time
- 14:10:31 [Ian]
- AdrianHB: Cool
- 14:10:51 [Ian]
- AdrianHB: But we need also to be in fora where key players are...we need to hear from browser vendors directly, for example.
- 14:11:30 [Ian]
- AdrianHB concrete proposal:
- 14:11:39 [Ian]
- - our communication of this task force happens on the main list
- 14:11:44 [alyver]
- q+
- 14:11:48 [Ian]
- ...so the meeting invitation and minutes go on the main list
- 14:11:50 [Ian]
- +1
- 14:11:52 [alyver]
- +1
- 14:11:58 [jnormore]
- +1
- 14:12:10 [Max]
- +1
- 14:12:22 [Ian]
- ack andre
- 14:12:31 [Ian]
- andre: I agree with AHB
- 14:12:33 [conorh_wp]
- +1
- 14:12:45 [Ian]
- RESOLVED: Send agendas and minutes of these calls to the main WG list
- 14:12:56 [Ian]
- q+
- 14:12:57 [Ian]
- ack aly
- 14:13:00 [Ian]
- ack
- 14:13:02 [Ian]
- ack me
- 14:15:08 [alyver]
- alyver has left #apps
- 14:15:20 [Ian]
- ACTION: Ian to announce the minutes of this call to the WG and plan to send agendas and minutes to that list
- 14:15:24 [Ian]
- Topic: Next call
- 14:15:33 [Ian]
- 27 July at 2pm UTC (9am ET)
- 14:16:10 [Ian]
- So sorry :(
- 14:16:22 [Ian]
- The UTC time is pm UTC
- 14:16:25 [Ian]
- The UTC time is 1pm UTC
- 14:16:49 [Ian]
- I APOLOGIZE
- 14:17:33 [Ian]
- rrrsagent, make minutes
- 14:17:36 [Ian]
- rrsagent, set logs public
- 14:18:29 [Ian]
- rrsagent, set logs public
- 14:18:36 [Ian]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 14:18:36 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apps-minutes.html Ian
- 14:18:37 [Ian]
- rrsagent, set logs public
- 14:43:00 [jnormore]
- jnormore has joined #apps
- 14:59:25 [Ian]
- zakim, bye
- 14:59:25 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Andre, Ian, Kapeng, Dapeng, Jason, Conor, Mahesh, JasonYoung
- 14:59:25 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #apps
- 14:59:27 [Ian]
- rrsagent, bye
- 14:59:27 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apps-actions.rdf :
- 14:59:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Ian to report back to the issues list that there were no objections to the proposal [1]
- 14:59:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apps-irc#T13-45-37
- 14:59:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Ian to announce the minutes of this call to the WG and plan to send agendas and minutes to that list [2]
- 14:59:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/20-apps-irc#T14-15-20