<Judy> clear agenda
<matatk> scribe+ matatk
<Judy> agenda order is 5, 4, 2, 3,
<matatk> Judy: This combines process as well as technical matters.
<matatk> ... Process: anything that W3C publishes on REC where we're doing something architecturally interesting may have comments from the TAG (technical architecture group). In this case
<matatk> ... the TAG had comments on work we've been developing for some time: WAI-Adapt (formerly Personalization).
<matatk> ... We had a long-running issue during which we were enquiring if the issue was closed. Eventually it was closed, which reduced concern about publication.
<matatk> ... We then found it got rejected at the last stage of approval. Turns out it had been marked closed, but it hadn't been made clear to the group that the TAG was dissatisfied, nor had they invited reps of APA to the
<matatk> ... meeting where it was discussed. Later we found that there were multiple misunderstandings about
<matatk> ... what the work was about, and whom the consumers are.
<matatk> ... There was a meeting about this at TPAC and there's been agreement to fix the process.
<matatk> .. I've been lobbying for a group to be invited when their issues are being discussed, and for this to be communicated openly, and will follow up on this.
<matatk> ... From a technical perspective, I understand that options for other implementation vehicles are being considered. If it is just misunderstandings, we should retrace the process bugs.
<matatk> ... The purpose of this conversation is to check the ideas being explored for implementation.
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476
<matatk> Chuck: Two stages: fixing the immediate issue, and fixing the process. Where are we currently at? Re publication?
<matatk> Judy: Blocked
<matatk> Chuck: Is there any way to address the short-term, or do we need to address the long-term?
<matatk> Judy: You don't need to worry about (but are welcome to) address the process issues - I'm following up on those.
<matatk> ... For this group of WAI groups, it's worthwhile hearing what the WAI-Adapt folks are brainstorming about, as they're open to potential re-thinking.
<matatk> ... But if it's just misunderstandings, may need to revisit with the TAG.
<matatk> janina: Not everyone has been involved in this, but we did have some useful conversations and thoughts about what's next. We don't think that our tagging is in danger here, but we may
<matatk> ... want to break it up and address some parts first. Specifically the AAC part.
<matatk> ... We may have some issues in that part of the 'distraction' part is advertising, which may be hard to get approval for. We did have great conversations about the utility of this.
<matatk> ... We're going to end up with a better spec, just a little more delayed.
<matatk> Judy: That's helpful to hear. I want to make sure you're not feeling forced, though, because the opinion was based on not having anyone in the room to explain things at the original meeting.
<matatk> Judy: Want to make sure you're not thinking that you _have_ to come up with something different.
<matatk> janina: I'm not assuming that, but I think we may be able to define this a bit better or more usefully, based on conversations at TPAC.
<matatk> ... The process part is a big part of it (closing an issue as unsatisfied seems illogical). Setting that aside, there was a conversation within COGA
<matatk> ... in which some were asking for more research, and others saying it was already well-researhced (one person's simplification may be someone else's obfuscation) so there is more to explore.
<Lionel_Wolberger> scribe+ Lionel_Wolberger
<Lionel_Wolberger> matatk: Definitely serious process issues. TAG was apologetic and we are still on good terms, it was a good discussion..
<Lionel_Wolberger> ... We are exploring the suggested overlaps with CSS regarding simplification and media queries
<Lionel_Wolberger> ... after some clarifications, we will return with our position and report
<matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: To recap: the spec contains 6 attributes. I came away with an understanding that symbols would likely sail through. Maybe we'll end up with more modules.
<matatk> ... No issues were raised with @action, @destination, and @purpose attrs too.
<matatk> ... TAG raised a concern about the spec being to heterogenous, and maybe that's the case, but the above seem very much related.
<matatk> +1 to symbol going weith @action, @destination, and @purpose.
<matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: We also have @simplification [briefly discussed above] and @distraction [where the concern was advertisers are unlikely to want to mark up their adverts as distracting].
<matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: My proposal as co-facilitator would be to propose @symbol and the above 3 as one related unit.
<matatk> Lionel_Wolberger: Also wanted to see what people thought of the meeting.
<matatk> Judy: I noticed that TAG didn't have a fully clear picture as to the relationship between this work and ARIA. I'm also concerned that the community put more than a year of development effort into an approach that had been considered unsatisfactory, without being made aware of this.
<matatk> ... Something similar happened with IndieUI.
<matatk> ... This is going to need more in-depth technical discussion, and I'd like ARIA to be in the loop.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to offer my uninformed interpretation of the issue
<matatk> tzviya: I've not been involved with it, just reading the issue, trying to get a bird's eye view.
<matatk> ... There are different options for notifications; could this have been an issue?
<matatk> Judy: Not in this case, as we followed up on that. One concern is about ensuring that subject matter experts are able to provide explanations to the TAG (in their meetings).
<matatk> janina: I'd happily leave the process discussion with you (Judy). We haven't discussed the approach with the rest of the group, but I think getting symbols out there will be transformative and we should pursue that.
<matatk> ... The TAG characterised this as well-done, which encourages us.
<matatk> Judy: We'll discuss more. Wanted to alert everyone on this call to the issue. Understand everyone's working as hard as they can.
<scribe> scribe: Chuck
<Lionel_Wolberger> * Lionel waves goodbye, thanks for all the Adapt work and regrets that I have to drop early.
Judy: With regard to WAI site
changes moratorium, this is a good idea. hadn't heard before
about it.
... Wanted to be sure you had a chance to see it. RE WCAG 2.2,
you are aiming for end of year publication (Chuck). The
moratorium is for site changes.
... Any questions and feedback?
... For December it starts 16th. I think that may have been the
last possible publication that could be used for 2.2.
Chuck: I saw it, but haven't had
a chance to "Grok" it yet. Still recovering from vacation
return.
... I noted that there may be implications, don't yet know what
they are.
Judy: Lists December 16 through
January, and November 18 through 28. Those may be key dates
that WCAG 2.2 is counting on there.
... I'm happy with the moratoria, but this intersects with some
dates that may also have impact on WCAG 2.2 schedule.
... Chuck, take a look at that with co-chairs.
... Between Alastair and Michael. Shawn is in a tough position
too.
Chuck: I have this topic scheduled for a chair call tomorrow, and we'll begin review at that time. Michael is on vac, and returns next week, we may not be able to act until we have Michael back.
Judy: Since you are working with
Philippe's timeline tool, you may need him as well.
... Any other comments on the moratorium?
... Brent, did you know about it as well?
Brent: No, just saw the email, not a problem for EO
Judy: It's realistic to have moratoria, but it came after some items already started and were announced.
Judy: I support the concept, but
the execution may need some finessing.
... Anything else related to publications?
... Any new work or projects since TPAC?
Tzviya: Not yet.
Judy: Video script reviews. Appreciated your gentle reminder. Any feedback on any videos?
Brent: No large group started,
typically wait until last minute. Survey will close on Monday
(26), we are pushing as wide as we can.
... Link to follow.
<Brent> Video Scripts Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/HPWD-Stories-Video-Scripts-Thorough/
Brent: Trying to be as accurate as possible.
Judy: The most sensitive area is the COGA area?
Brent: Yes. Working with Coga to be sure they are aware.
Judy: There's been some back
channeling. Many times when there are cross group contacts, we
have found that person to person contact doesn't necessarily
work out very well, and we advise that such coordination be
done in an archived format.
... We want to address the issue to be sure that communications
get archived.
... Person to person can be most comfortable, but can cause
some surprise.
Brent: We are making that adjustment.
Judy: Helps to coordinate the new
communication with impacted groups is helpful.
... Any other critical reviews we want to get so that nobody is
surprised.
... Any essential reviews that aren't in yet?
Brent: I don't think so. We've
reached out to key individuals and areas, to be sure we get it
accurate.
... We are covering all of that, and of course anybody who
wants to review can do so.
... This is a 3 page resource, this is for scripts that are for
stories for web users page, there are 9 user stories.
... We are working on scripts for the other pages, but we want
to get these done first.
Judy: Anything else on video scripts?
Judy: I've heard a bit of debrief
in AGWG, would people like to do some debrief in this
meeting?
... The feedback is extremely helpful for W3C, regardless of
good or bad, happy or sad. We did get some good feedback. It
took a lot of effort to have successful hybrid meetings.
Tzviya: It's a good idea to send
the survey multiple times. The hybrid format worked better than
I expected. I was impressed.
... Video and Audio worked well for both in person and
remote.
<matatk> +1 to the hybrid working really well (well done!)
Tzviya: The Salon had 50-70
people, and breakout sessions, and it all worked well.
... AC meeting didn't work quite as well. Maybe the large
size... not sure what could be improved.
<Brent> Unfortunately I was not able to attend virtually as I had hoped. I know it will always be best for me to attend in person otherwise I will be distracted or called away by work. I have heard second hand that the sessions worked well.
Tzviya: Maybe we can brainstorm
on improving that. It did work well, but hard to get a sense of
the audience.
... It worked well in spite of those issues. I was impressed
with the covid procedures. I loved outdoor activities.
<matatk> +1 to the covid precautions, and the outside space.
Judy: Janina, you had a sighted guide?
Janina: I did! I have high praise
for the hybrid. I think we may be able to improve... we had a
bit of issue with 2 meetings going on side by side with just a
curtain separating, so mixed audio.
... We can fix that, but one thing to fix, those of us with
voices that get picked up easily, we have individuals who have
voices that don't get picked up very well.
... This was an in room issue, zoom may have been better.
Judy: Soft walls? I will follow up.
Janina: We can deal with soft walls, but need to figure out how to address the variability of different voices.
<matatk> +1 to the "soft walls" (moveable partitions) causing audio issues.
Judy: There's a "soft voice" issue, maybe amplifiers? Maybe an in-room microphone, but then you need more complex technology.
Janina: Yes, will take more thinking.
Judy: Do me a favor and put that
in your feedback. I think the implications are complicated. We
will need to review and figure out.
... Sometimes a mic is wired to outside, and doesn't get back
to inside. And if piped to inside, can cause feedback. Requires
complex setup.
... Brent, the reasons for EO not meeting, were you involved
with other meetings? health issues?
Brent: Timing and some people did
not wish to travel.
... There were only 2 others besides leadership that thought
they could be there, and one has not been recently active. We
couldn't get a quorum.
Judy: Thx. We are at end.
Brent: I anticipate that we will meet next year. Is there info on TPAC for next year?
Judy: Not yet.
Judy: That q ties to legal entity
update, W3C will have a new board, elected this week and seated
next week.
... The plan is we don't have the body in place to sign
contracts yet.
... But things are moving along. Things continue to move
forward, the election wraps in a day or 2.
Tzviya: Board election ends in a
few hours.
... There was discussions in open and closed AC session. First
time we had an open AC session.
... There were a lot of questions.
... Financials were in closed session. It was fun to
moderate.
Judy: Good job!
Tzviya: It's a new era for the W3C.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Those are/Those may be/ Present: tzviya, Judy, matatk, Lionel_Wolberger, Chuck, jamesn Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 21 Sep 2022 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]