第4回 JLReq F2F meeting は今日 6/25 10 am JST

みなさま、ミーティングは今日朝 10 時から、いつもの場所です。

今から新幹線に乗ります。See you soon!

木田

> 2019/06/19 11:48、Yasuo Kida <kida@mac.com>のメール:
> 
> JLReq Task Force members,（English follows）
> 
> 次のミーティングを来週の6月25日火曜日に行いましょう。
> 
> 前回から二週間ですが、Gap Analysis の作業の立ち上がりを支えたいのと、Nat が7月前半バケーション & 私が7月後半（18-29）US、8月入るとお盆、と続いて集まりにくくなる可能性があるのでちょっと早めにしました。
> 
> 
> 日時と場所
> 6/25 Tue 10 am JST @ 前回と同じ MediaDo 会議室
> Nat joins from Seattle (6/24 6 pm PDT). Let's test MediaDo’s WiFi connection with a hope of improving the currently choppy video & voice.
> 
> 議題案
> 今回のゴールは2点。一点は Gap Analysis の作業の立ち上がりを確認して問題があれば解決すること、もう一点は前回のミーティングで出てきた問題提起についてそれをどのように Gap Analysis に織り込んで行くか、一部でもアクションに落とし込めればと思っています。
> 
> Gap Analysis: 作業の立ち上がりの確認
> テスト開発チームからの報告（村上さん、高瀬さん、田嶋さん。どなたかが仕切っていただけますか？） 
> CSS の必要な機能、既に CSS がある機能についての進め方（下農さん、木田）
> Gap Analysis: 前回のミーティングで出てきた問題提起について（木田）
> 日本人には当たり前すぎて JLReq に詳しく書いていないが、重要性がある / 英語のレイアウトの方法とは異なるなどの点から、Gap Analysis の対象とすべき点があるか
> 基本版面など、 CSS の組み合わせで達成されるものに対しては CSS 単独ではなく、組み合わせでのテストが必要なのではないか
> 全体的に、テストは CSS が期待通りに動くか「ではなく」、その CSS により JLReq に記述されているレイアウトが再現可能か、をテストすべきではないか
> JLReq updates: 特に話し合うことがあれば（下農さん）
> ユーザーフィードバックで注目すべきものについて（田嶋さん）
> 他に追加はありますか？
> 
> 
> 参考のために下に前回の meetings notes を添付してあります。
> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> We’ll have have a meeting on 6/25, earlier than usual to support smooth ramp up of the Gap Analysis work.
> 
> Time and Place
> F2F meeting on 6/25 Tue 10 am JST @ MediaDo meeting room
> Nat joins on screen from Seattle (6/24 6 pm PDT)
> 
> Proposed Agenda
> Gap Analysis: Checking the status and solve roadblocks if any
> Test suit team (Murakami-san, Takase-san, Tajima-san)
> Can we start writing the report for the areas where CSS needs to be defined, and the areas we already have tests? (Shimono-san, Kida)
> Gap Analysis: Responding to the issues raised at the last meeting, discuss how we can improve our Gap Analysis report (Kida)
> JLReq updates: discuss issues if any (Shimono-san)
> User feedback: Have we got ones that are worth discussing? (Tajima-san)
> Anything else?
> 
> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> copy of: JLReq TF meeting notes 2019 June 12th
> 
> Attendee
> Kobayashi, Tatsuo
> Kobayashi, Toshi (Bin-sensei)
> McCully, Nat (online)
> Murakami, Shinyu
> Shimono, Atsushi
> Tajima, Jun
> Takase, Hiroshi
> Kida, Yasuo
> 
> Meeting notes
> 
> Status of JLReq update (Shimono-san)
> Status
> There are a few remaining open errata: #10, #15, #18, #53, #56
> Consensus
> Will fix discrepancies between English and Japanese (like #53, #56) as they are reported.
> Regarding the glossary (#60), the agreement is to fix the links.
> Actions
> Archive images on git-lfs (#63). Thank you Xue Fuquiao for suggestions. (Shimono-san)
> Fix the links in the glossary (Shimono-san. The GA report is higher priority.)
> 
> Gap Analysis: analysis of the work (Murakami-san)
> Murakami-san reported the overview of GA tasks based on his chart that describes availability of corresponding CSS and tests for each section of JLReq. Link to the chart.
> Discussions
> There are two different cases for “css exists? = no”. One is that the feature require CSS but they have not been defined yet. The other case is that the feature does not require CSS because it should always work in a certain way. They still need tests. We need to separate these two. → Murakami-san to reflect it in the action column.
> We want rough priority on each section to organise the work. → Bin-sensei to assign three level prioritisation to the chart.
> Concerns are raised against the current approach of analysing and organising the work. They are all good points. We will discuss them at the next meeting.
> There are features that are left unsaid in JLReq because they are so basic and natural to native speakers but they are new concepts to English speakers. → We want to capture them in a section of the GA report, as well as in the future version of JLReq.
> There are features that are achieved by combinations of CSS, e.g. section 2 “Kihon-hanmen”. A concern is that they are not properly tested with approach of developing tests for individual CSS or for particular aspect of a feature. (This might be similar to the concept of unit tests vs integration tests)
> Tests should be developed in a way that they try to reproduce good results that JLReq expects, rather than to test CSS to see if they work in a way that they are designed for.
> Actions
> Add an “Action” column (Murakami-san)
> Assign rough priority (Bin-sensei. Kida will send a chart to him)
> Will discuss more about the concerns raised at the next meeting (Kida / Nat)
> 
> Gap Analysis: framework of the work (Kida)
> We are almost ready to start the GA work. Agreed on the following assignments:
> Developing missing i18n tests: Murakami-san, Takase-san, Tajima-san with help from Shimono-san
> Writing GA reports:  Shimono-san
> Kobayashi-san will cover topics that do not fit well with the structure of the report.
> Priorities: Bin-sensei
> Available resources (other than i18n tests and wpt)
> We can take advantage of tests that JAGAT developed to test EPUB.
> Example text used in JLReq can be freely used for tests. If necessary Bin-sensei can generate example texts.
> Question to Richard
> Which GitHub issues should be used to track the work of developing i18n tests?
> 
> User Feedback (Tajima)
> Shimono-san extracted user feedback in a spread sheet (34 items).
> Action
> Add comments to each item (Bin-sensei)
> 
> The next meeting (Kida)
> The next meeting will be F2F. Kida to find a date.
> The rough agenda will be:
> Status of JLReq update
> Status of Gap Analysis work. is it ramping up?
> Discuss how we address concerns raised on the current approach of analysing and organising the work
> any other?
> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> 
> - kida