Minutes for UAWG Call - 3 September 2009

http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-ua-minutes.html

- DRAFT -
UAWG telecon
03 Sep 2009

See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Jallan, MHakkinen._JSpellman, KFord, GLowney, DTseng
Regrets
JRichards, HSwan, SHarper
Chair
Jim_allan
Scribe
mth
Contents
Topics
Finish Discussion of survey at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090826/
Face 2 Face - TPAC, please complete attendance survey at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090821/ if you haven't already
done so.
Summary of Action Items





<dtseng1> I'll only be on IRC due to my proximity to a phone

<AllanJ> title: UAWG Telecon

<dtseng1> here; only on IRC today

<AllanJ> Hi David,

<AllanJ> David did you send in your comments on HTML5

<AllanJ> Mark will send his in after the meeting

mth will send his HTML5 video comment today.

<dtseng1> will have comments in today as well

JA: can we still send in comments re HTML5?

JS: no deadline, no date for last call. can still send in commments.
after last call, we can still send in comments.

JA: In reading the HTML5 doc, there are still many things which are
unresolved that are blocking going to last call. Jeanne is also
putting together a spreasheet with the comments.

JS: do we want any kind of intro to send in with the comments?

KF: two sentence paragraph: this is the collective thinking of the
UAAG group on HTML5.

JA: Preliminary review. send to PF and CG.
Finish Discussion of survey at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090826/

JA: was simon going to work on his definition?

GL: comment, why the 3 definitions?

JA: wrestling with the definition. UA's cover lots of things. What
exactly is a UA and this is Simon's effort to come up with a
definition.

GL: defining new terms isn't necessary, especially if we don't use
those terms anywhere except in the definition.

JA: Primary, base, embedded UA have all been discussed. What are the
distinctions?

GL: lots of brain power time and energy going into definitions that we
may never get right. Leave it open. Its really up to the purchasing
authority to decide what compliance requirement are for UA. A basic
definition is needed, IF we are not trying to define specific
requirements for specific types of UA's. It can be tough for readers
to parse and understand what this is? e.g., Is a Java runtime a UA?

JA: We detail these things (Simon's stuff) in our GL's and leave the
UA definition broad. No need to burden the definition.

MH: agree.

JS: agree.

<AllanJ> David: thoughts?

<Greg> Also when we're detailed we run the risk of getting it wrong,
such as inadvertently making JRE, C#, etc. count as User Agents.

<AllanJ> MH: thought Simon's efforts are related to techniques as well
as guidelines

JA: JRE is a platform within a platform. It is not its own thing.
Can't use the "Its Java" excuse. Working on this problem for years.

GL: package or software that meets the guidelines. UA could be
compliant, but a plug-in may provided with the UA may not be
accessible. If included with the UA, then the non-compliant plug-in
makes the whole non-compliant.

JA: sounds like we are done with the survey. Anyone disagree?

GL: what is the resolution on the definition?

JA: consensus of those on the call to keep the current definition. Use
Simon's suggestions when writing specific guidelines and techniques to
which those suggestions may apply.

JS: put Simon's suggestions in techniques. Note it as an issue.
... what section?

JA: GL1, perhaps other sections.

<jeanne> issue: Move tests for User Agent into Guideline 1 Techniques

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-42 - Move tests for User Agent into Guideline
1 Techniques ; please complete additional details at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/42/edit .
Face 2 Face - TPAC, please complete attendance survey at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090821/ if you haven't already
done so.

JA: please complete the attendance survey if you haven't already?
... a new item for the agenda. About one comment per week for the spec.

<AllanJ> Need to generate topics for F2F

<Greg> Rather than everyone reading the document over again, I suggest
that everyone go through the comments they have submitted, checking to
see if they are resolved to their satisfaction. Otherwise we risk
thinking about, writing, and submitting the same comments all over
again.

KF: everyone should review spec from top to bottom and note issues.

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2009/ED-UAAG20-20090722/

JA: maybe so both, review spec and comments.

c /so/do/

KF: moving toward finishing. is it finished? have we covered what are
likely to be the broad spectrum of UA's likely to exist in the coming
time period (interval undefined).

KF+JS+MH all doing more browsing on the phone.

JA: for next week, review top to bottom and generate any issues,
and/or review comments and see if they have been addressed.

JS: perhaps at the f2f we can actually start writing the techniques

<dtseng1> One thing to consider with respect to new forms of UA's is
the wider use of touch-based devices used as an input method
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:03:45 UTC