Re: Minutes IndieUI - 19 November 2014

James the 3rd and then the 17th and then back to out regular schedule.
....:-)

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea @ GMAIL
On Nov 19, 2014 7:57 PM, "James Craig" <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:

> 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]
> >
>
>
>