Re: Second Survey--Please Respond ASAP

I've completed the survey but I want to add something additional that 
doesn't quite fit there.

I am very much in accord with Jason's points below (and similarly wish 
to work in whatever groups the work is done in and all that stuff he said).
I have perhaps one minor difference I think is worth pointing out:

Given the coming Internet of Things and the need to have human 
interfaces in that world adapt to User Preferences (my name for User 
Context) and systems where data is carried but there is no direct human 
interface *also* aware of potential User Preferences in connected (even 
indirectly) systems I wonder whether the Events structure and 
implementation (which I hold in very high regard and want to see work 
continued on) is the only implementation architecture needed for 
implementing the User Context.  There may in the longer term be 
implementation technologies (for the User Context) which don't quite fit 
with the Events Model and maybe there is need for a more lightweight 
model as well. So I don't think its essential that the Events Model and 
the User Context are for ever tightly bound together - the User Context 
may have a wider application context than Events alone.

For another example, the User Context may be useable by dedicated 
stand-alone eBook readers - how many of these have an OS that would work 
with Events as it is ?

Just tentative thinking ...

andy

On 29/04/2015 16:17, White, Jason J wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 20:12, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> The "preference" matrix tables are difficult to read but the results from the previous survey as I read them are:
>>
>> 1. Should the work be moved? Yes. 100% unanimous.
>>
>> 2. Should work remain in IndieUI? No. 100% unanimous (No or Prefer Not)
>>
>> 3. Where should Events be moved? Very difficult to parse a majority decision in this matrix table. Looks like it's either PF or WebApps, or a joint TF.
>>
>> 4. What should happen to User Context? Very difficult to parse a majority decision, again due to the matrix table. Looks like it's either PF or CSS, or a joint TF.
>>
>> 5. What should happen to the work that does not not fit in Events or User Context. Somewhat difficult to parse a majority decision, again due to the matrix table. Looks like it's either PF or recharter.
>>
>> Cite: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/54997/201503_planning/results
>>
> Thank you for the summary, James.
>
> The essence of my view is that I want to see continuation of both Events and User Context work, through a collaboration of accessibility experts and other communities of interest who also stand to benefit (in particular, CSS and WebApps).
>
> At this point I don’t mind what working group structure is set up to achieve this, as long as the right people are doing the work - and those include everyone currently in IndieUI as well as people who contribute to other aspects of W3C work, and, importantly, implementors, both on the user agents side and the Web application side.
>
> I’ll gladly contribute in whatever working group or task force takes up these efforts, as long as the right people are in the dialogue.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
>
> ________________________________
>

-- 
Andy Heath : andyheath@axelafa.com : http://axelafa.com

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 17:04:16 UTC