Re: Minutes IndieUI - 19 November 2014

Late regrets. My "every two weeks" reminder is for next week. I must've missed that we shuffled the date. 

Is the next meeting December 3rd or December 10th? December 10th would put us back on the normal schedule, but December 3rd would be two weeks from today.


> On Nov 19, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote:
> 
> Link: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-indie-ui-minutes.html
> 
> Plain text follows:
> 
>   [1]W3C
> 
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
> 
>                               - DRAFT -
> 
>          Independent User Interface Task Force Teleconference
> 
> 19 Nov 2014
> 
>   See also: [2]IRC log
> 
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-indie-ui-irc
> 
> Attendees
> 
>   Present
>          janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, kurosawa, +1.609.906.aaaa,
>          Katie_Haritos-Shea, Jason_White
> 
>   Regrets
>          Rich, Michael
> 
>   Chair
>          Janina_Sajka
> 
>   Scribe
>          joanie
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * [3]Topics
>         1. [4]preview agenda with items from two minutes
>         2. [5]Telecon Rescheduling Conversation
>         3. [6]Checkin with Web Apps' Editing TF
>         4. [7]Editor's Report
>         5. [8]Requirements & Use Cases Progress
>     * [9]Summary of Action Items
>     __________________________________________________________
> 
>   <trackbot> Date: 19 November 2014
> 
> preview agenda with items from two minutes
> 
>   <janina> OK, Takashi, thanks!
> 
>   <kurosawa> ??P2 is me
> 
>   <scribe> scribenick: joanie
> 
>   JS: Items for the good of the order?
>   ... I have one item which is our next meetings.
>   ... I propose that we meet again on 3 December, then 17
>   December.
>   ... Then it's Christmas and New Years.
> 
>   <janina> Next meetings on December 3 & 17
> 
>   <janina> No meeting December 31
> 
>   <janina> Resume January 7
> 
>   JS: We resume 7 January.
> 
>   JW: Unless someone on list has an issue, I think we should go
>   with that.
> 
>   TK: Agreed
> 
>   JS: Done
> 
> Telecon Rescheduling Conversation
> 
> Checkin with Web Apps' Editing TF
> 
>   JS: Ben is not here.
>   ... However, I'd like to hilight 2 things from the list:
>   ... Ben started a discussion and there were some responses, but
>   not fully resolved.
> 
>   <janina> Naming conversation ended at:
> 
>   <janina>
>   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2014Nov
>   /0028.html
> 
>     [10]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2014Nov/0028.html
> 
>   JS: Naming.... (see above link)
>   ... It would be good if we could draw some conclusion.
>   ... It's easier to get it right.
> 
>   JW: It's going to appear in multiple specifications.
>   ... Agreement is more important(ish) than what the decision is.
> 
>   JS: Ben also posted a useful note about the various related
>   threads:
> 
>   <janina> Related group work pointers are provided in:
> 
>   <janina>
>   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2014Nov
>   /0035.html
> 
>     [11]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2014Nov/0035.html
> 
>   JS: I just put the URI for the various discussions in (above)
>   ... In talking with Michael, maybe we don't want a combined
>   list.
>   ... For instance, there's the Editing discussions.
>   ... We have no disagreements over who owns what.
>   ... Maybe IndieUI will launch ideas that gets picked up in
>   other specs. There's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Editor's Report
> 
>   JS: James is not here so we don't have a report.
> 
>   JW: It doesn't show anything interesting.
>   ... I'm still setting up my Linux environment. Then I'll have
>   all my tools set up.
> 
> Requirements & Use Cases Progress
> 
>   JS: I think this is the overall topic we were on when
>   informally chatting.
>   ... The question about how far we want to take this in 1.0
>   versus 1.1 versus X.next
>   ... My guess is, most of the people here at least would like to
>   see extensibility supported.
>   ... And agree to a fairly limited 1.0.
> 
>   Katie: Yes
> 
>   JS: I think I heard that from Jason.
>   ... If we can find out how that extensibility works....
> 
>   JW: I have some concerns about criteria for what's included in
>   1.0.
>   ... There's variation in systems (OS and platforms).
> 
>   JS: Let's talk about this because I don't think we'd say it
>   would need to be things that are uniformly supported.
>   ... Example: Desktops support high contrast modes.
>   ... But at least in Android, there doesn't seem to be such a
>   thing as a plain background.
>   ... Seems to me we'd draw the line in the sand. You have to
>   provide a plain background.
>   ... So there's a 2nd criteria that informs the most.
>   ... Some variety in how it's implemented is ok, as long as it's
>   easy to add.
> 
>   JW: So what we're concerned with at the very early stage is
>   having it work it's way into the user agent.
>   ... You could then add to the common attributes in subseqeuent
>   versions.
> 
>   JS: I don't know what other difficult points we have for
>   getting 1.0 out.
>   ... But I think that principle should help.
>   ... Even as we figure out how to support extensibility.
> 
>   JW: I've been talking to people about it, and that does become
>   a common concern.
> 
>   JS: I don't have any more specifically for today.
>   ... We should probably ask on list regarding this summary that
>   we just articulated if this is general agreement.
> 
>   JW: Thinking about the Events, is it still true that the big
>   outstanding issue is the one related to slider controls
>   ... Is this what everyone thinks needs to be sorted out, or was
>   that resolved at TPAC?
> 
>   JS: I don't think it was.
>   ... I'd like to hear some proposals from the engineers.
> 
>   JW: I could work on it, but I don't know what the issues are.
> 
>   JS: If you want to throw out a straw proposal....
> 
>   JW: We need to get on top of what the issues with it were. Then
>   maybe we can come up with something.
>   ... Should we do something, maybe on the agenda for next time?
> 
>   JS: I'll add it to the agenda for next time.
> 
>   JW: Checking to see what the state of it is would help.
> 
>   JS: It seems to me we need to tackle that.
>   ... It's certainly an issue on mobile devices right now.
> 
>   JW: I think it's fairly similar between Android and iOS.
>   ... The issue is always going to be how do you define the
>   generic events for this.
>   ... It's not just sliders. It could be a circular control.
>   ... Example: An imaginary clock hand.
> 
>   JS: As Android has.
> 
>   JW: You want generic events to describe the action.
>   ... You have the component that the person is manipulating,
>   along with the bigger control that contains it.
>   ... The generic/intentional event needs to be generated.
> 
>   JS: Based on who's here, I think we've done what we can today.
>   ... Happy Turkey Day.
> 
>   Katie: And welcome to Jason to your first one in the U.S.
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>   [End of minutes]
>

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2014 00:57:41 UTC