W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > June 2012

Draft Minutes: 13 June 2012 Teleconference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:07:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD8E4FD.5070504@nokia.com>
To: public-indie-ui@w3.org
The draft minutes from the IndieUI TF's June 13 voice conference are 
available at the following and copied below:

<http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-indie-ui-minutes.html>

TF Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-indie-ui mail list before June 20.

-Thanks, AB

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        IndieUI Task Force telecon

13 Jun 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun/0007.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-indie-ui-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jania_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Doug_Schepers, Art_Barstow,
           Cathy_Chan, Andy_Heath, Joseph_Scheuhammer, RichS

    Regrets
           RichS

    Chair
           Janina_Sajka

    Scribe
           Art

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Source code repository
          2. [6]Task Force Work Statement
             http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF
          3. [7]Recruiting
          4. [8]use cases
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <ArtB>  Scribe: Art

    <ArtB>  ScribeNick: ArtB

Source code repository

    Date: 13 June 2012

    <scribe>  Chair: Janina

    Janina: source code repository

     what are the issues?

     that we need to discuss

    MC: I want guidance on structure of the repo

     I asked James a question

     could have a folder per deliverable

     and other that could have other subfolders and files

     James indicated version-specific dirs may not be needed
    because Hg can handle branches

    JS: is the proposed structure documented?

    MC: I can mail a proposal to the list

    <MichaelC>  events

    <MichaelC>  + 1.0

    <MichaelC>  + spec

    <MichaelC>  + indie-ui-events.html

    <MichaelC>  + {supporting files if any}

    <MichaelC>  + tests

    <MichaelC>  context

    <MichaelC>  + 1.0

    <MichaelC>  + spec

    <MichaelC>  + indie-ui-context.html

    JS: can also use tags

    <MichaelC>  + {supporting files if any}

    <MichaelC>  + tests

    AB: my recommendation is that we move this discussion to list
    after we see Michael's proposal

    DS: agree, let's take this to the list

Task Force Work Statement [10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF

      [10] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF

    Janina: we discussed this a bit last time

    MC: I have some outstanding input from Art

     #9 he had a comment

     he was wondering if need subteams

    Janina: we may need them

     they have been useful in A11Y TF (HTML WG)

    AB: I am OK with the wording on point #9; agree subteams may be
    useful

    MC: main part is Participation section

    [ Michael reads the data  ]

     Art thought Regrets was overkill

    Janina: regrets set expectation that there are participation
    requirements

    DS: that is a different pattern than the one Art and I use in
    other groups

     we talked about this in yesterday's WebEvents call

     some people didn't want to join the TF it it meant they
    *must* attend every call

    Janina: we can have "standing regrets"

    DS: think we will get more browser vendor participation if we
    don't have firm standing requirements

    JS: how about recommending but not requiring

    DS: that would be fine

    Janina: that would be OK

    MC: if attendance isn't required, it can complicate decision
    making

    DS: using email can help bring clarity because people can be
    more careful on their comments

     want to make participation as inviting as possible

     I would drop that section

    Janina: I want to at least recommend participation
    ... there can also be misunderstanding with email

     and voice confs can help bring clarity

     I realize we can never pick a time that will work well for
    everyone

     Both channels are valuable

    AB: I would prefer "highly encourage" in terms of telcon
    meetings

     and I am OK with asking all Editors to send Regrets

    Janina: think we should take this offline

    DS: if there is a problem on the list, it may be a
    misunderstanding by someone that is not in the TF

     but if the misunderstanding is among TF members, it makes
    sense to use telecon time to help clarify the misunderstanding

    Janina: I agree Doug

    MC: I'll take this offline

     any other issues about the Work Statement?

    [ None ]

    Janina: ok, hearing no objections we will move on

Recruiting

    Janina: would like to get browser vendors

     we of course want broad implementation

     need someone from Mozilla

     would be good to get IE people

     we have at least one Webkit (Apple)

    Janina: what about Web Events

    <MichaelC>  scribeNick: McihaelC

    <MichaelC>  scribeNick: MichaelC

    ArtB: Rick Byers working on Chrome tablet, needs to learn first
    Touch events

    Opera wants to follow, but Web Events candidate based in Tokyo,
    difficult for telecon

    Mozilla interested, probably will have someone but not
    identified who yet

    would help to have concrete specs for recruiting process

    Janina: we have starter draft from Apple that has gone through
    a couple revisions

    mc: have a version ready to post, pending resolution on
    repository structure

    there are old versions around, but they don't have standing and
    reluctant to reference

    Janina: think we're about a week away from having sharable
    stuff

    <ArtB>  ScribeNick: ArtB

    <MichaelC>  and next week's call is a good time to invite people
    to look in

    Janina: what do we do before we have a doc in Hg?

    DS: I think Art was also asking when is there going to be a
    Call for Proposals?

     I think we should put out a CfPs

    MC: Apple's proposal is all we have now

     my inclination is that we put out a first doc and then put
    out a CfP

    Janina: we could put out Apple's spec and then make a Call for
    Counter Proposals

    AH: that could be a conflict

    DS: Art and I were asking for a CfP and Apple's could be one
    such proposal

    MC: I think Apple's proposal can be used to help recruiting

     if we don't have something concrete, the CfP may not be that
    useful

    DS: since we are just starting, perhaps not having something
    too specific would be good

     if we have Apple's proposal on the table, it could limit
    inputs

    Janina: so the priority is to start the CfP?

    DS: yes

    Janina: any objections to doing that now?

    DS: no

    Rich: what about UCs?

    DS: we could collect them at the same time

    Janina: what about a deadline?

    DS: perhaps two weeks

    Rich: I think we can expect inputs from IBM

    Janina: I will work with Michael, Doug and Art on the CfP

     and do so by next week

     How does that sound?

    Rich: sounds OK

     as long as names aren't fixed yet

     we need other inputs

    Janina: I would be thrilled to have multiple proposals

    AB: I think your plan is a good one Janina

    Rich: do we have a wiki for UCs?

    Janina: we can talk about UCs today

     agree we start talking about them

    JS: there was a Gnome a11y meeting last week

     I mentioned this WG

     there was some interest

     and someone may apply as an Invited Expert

    <janina>  Joanmarie

    JS: Joanmarie works on Orca screen reader

     there will be another meeting tomorrow

     and I'll mention our status

use cases

    <shepazu>
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirement
    s

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements

    DS: I am working on the UCs wiki

     based on the Audio WG's UCs work

    Rich: I like the priorities

     who sets them?

    DS: the Audio WG decides, on calls

     about the priorities over discussion related to versions

     and this helps us identify the highest priority for v1

     v1 is aimed at something that can be broadly implemented ASAP

     This WG may choose to do something else

    <shepazu>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requiremen
    ts

      [12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements

    AB: UCs work with Touch Events spec was very useful

     for capturing priorities

     and to have a place to log UC and Reqs for v.next

    DS:
    [13]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requiremen
    ts

      [13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements

     Let me talk about Audio WG's UC work

     We give each UC an ID

     and then describe a story

     For each UC we include some Notes as well as a Priority

     For each UC we also document the related Requirements

    <andy>  can't get back in

    <andy>  The conference is restricted at this time

     A UC's Notes can include some points of the group's consensus
    on the UC

    <andy>  ok - I'll watch IRC then

    DS: we have noticed that some requirements can span more than
    one UC

    Rich: I like this

    Janina: I agree; this is awesome

    DS: Rich, can your UCs map to this structure?

    Rich: yes; thanks very much

    DS: well, it's the Audio WG that we need to thank ;-)

    Janina: yes, I like this a lot

    DS: I will try to fill out at least one UC and some Reqs before
    the next call

     and include "real" data

    Janina: ok; great please do that

     and Michael will continue to do the Hg work

     I will try to get a draft CfP to Doug, Mike and Art by end of
    this week

     Thanks all for a productive meeting!

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 19:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 19:08:09 GMT