Meeting minutes
Proposed upcoming joint meeting - planning and discussion.
MC: Does intro..
MC: I spoke with the APA chairs about this - we have a mix of blind and deaf people present
It would be good to have someone sighted on the call sharing the docs
Ideally not the scribe
MC: Responses?
Could anyone take this up?
+1 to MC
SN: I can do it today
Whoever is taking minutes cant screen share.
MC: Follow the links when we get into the document
JOC: We need a scribe and a screen sharer
JS: Are our call cluttered? Should we have transcriptions on in Zoom?
MC: Yeah people can turn them off.
JS: Regarding joint meeting for this time next week - COGA and other parties
<MichaelC> s/instigated/initiated/
There is an interest in methodological considerations and how work is done at W3C
JW: Anything else?
JS: Not since I sent something this morning - Lisa will now be offline until next week
Some of this may come last minute
Lisa will invite people from COGA - there will be others from AGWG
We can work out how we can co-ordinate
We have lots of experts here in this group, as well as in COGA
We want to co-ordinate and work effectively
New agenda may not happen until early next week
We can work out details for other groups in email etc
JW: Any comments?
SH: Would it be helpful if I outlined the current process?
<Scott gives overview>
JS: This is what Lisa wanted us to work on
JS: A general overview would be very helpful
JS: We may examine keywords and find new things
JW: I agree
JW: I can also help out with that - keywords are a good start
SH: But not the be all and end all
JS: We can reiterate the process
JW: We can do that
Collecting combined expertise drawing on the field for good coverage is important
JW: We can take what is found in other groups into consideration
JOC: +1 from me
SH: I'll kick that off
Revising the RQTF Work Statement.
JW: I know there is work being done, any update?
JS: There is a request for us to re-read it
Its useful for someone new but it may be good as is, or indeed need update
APA is rechartering - we would like to list deliverables over the next two years
RQTF doesn't do normative specs
But this is a fairly lightweight request
JS: We'd like to finish the charter and forward to Michael and W3C management etc
MC: I've had a look, dont see a need to change it
Shadi used to update work statements more that me
JW: If it looks good to you that is encouraging
Unless there are other comments we can bring it back for review in two weeks
JS: Good plan, but we are looking at elevating Maturity model to its own TF
This work will be moved out of RQTF - early to mid Feb
MC: Points out that whoever is sharing the screen should follow the relevant link and share on screen
Web of Things: APA Working Group review.
JW: There are two agenda for this - first regarding working group review, and then recovery strategies for these devices
JS: Have we the link to share it, the email?
SN: Yes
JS: <gives background on Gottfrieds Phd review of WoT>
https://
JS: Should we just forward this to MichaelMc in WoT group?
JW: Dont know much about the Matter standard. It is an open spec - about the protocols and standards used for devices
JS: Is this a path for taking middleware out of the equation?
JW: It might -but my understanding is that WoT based controllers would be attached over this protocol
There are questions of configuration and how discovery happens
JS: <Gives overview of how it happens>
JS: Camera or QR a bar code - install that - it hopefully helps you connect to the device - usually a miserable experience
Once that is done - the control of these devices - whether Google, Amazon or Apple - if Matter takes the place of that in between app - this would be great
SN: Gotta drop
JOC: Gives recap - sounds like a good overview
JOC: This could potentially standardise the space from an accessibility perspective
JS: Yes
RK: Are you saying because Matter is becoming more standardized - is that me, the human, in the way may help to standardize the process?
JS: Yes, it may be space that Matter occupies
JW: I'll look into it.
RK: I've already done testing with Matter on Android and iPhone
They dont interact with each other
You need to register them seperatatly - there may be some nice a11y there
RK: I'm in support of this.
JS: You mean because you configure it on one, it doesn't work in another?
RK: Yes, you need to config both seperately
JS: If you put in a new device does Matter add it?
RK: Yes, I think its the human interaction piece but thats my hope that its the function
JS: Great - we can figure this out
JW: I'll do some research
JS: We can follow up with WoT - no time crunch at the mo.
JW: We can talk again in two weeks
Web of Things: accessible recovery expectations.
JW: This is review of conversation from last week
Wireless interference can push these devices off the network.
They need to be positioned properly
JS: They are sometimes 80211 - mentioned in advertising.
They can still fail
<gives overview of her experience resetting these devices after a power output>
SH: There is another example, I've a smart clock - that gives me message fail - but gives me no sense of what the error is.
There is an order to rebooting
We should try to capture some of this.
JW: Question - say a device is reset, looses connection etc - what are the expectations about re-connection attempts?
Do configs in memory survive?
How persistent and robust are these protocols?
Maybe the Matter standard addresses that.
SH: We could explore and add it to our user requirements doc.
JS: Regarding failure recovery scenarios - the devices that phone home, Nest etc - may be trying to do this with previous network data that may not be valid
Waiting longer may not be an option
JOC: Sounds like there is a need for persistent protocols in some contexts but not in others
JS: <gives and example of where engineering thinking is going>
JW: <Gives overview of potential protocols>
We need potentially local network based access even when the larger network is out
JS: There are data pushes from phone home devices to CDN services
<More discussion on devices>
JW: Will we open a wiki?
SH: yup
Task Force publications.
JOC: Just to add the WoT Architecture review wiki page could be a good place for this https://
SH: We had a discussion last week
Its not really clear that we are looking at Collab tools relating to documents etc
Michael made this point last week.
JW: The document does define scope well - is this an issue with messaging?
SH: Yes
MC: Yes
JW: We can rework it and invite review
JW: Lets bring it back in two weeks
Add citations etc
SH: Agreed
RK: I asked about the range from texting to speaking. How much part of the speaking do you envisage for this type of platform?
JW: Two weeks (we have a joint meeting thing next week)
MC: We should add questions of this sort to the messaging etc
JW: Thanks all