21:59:17 RRSAgent has joined #indie-ui 21:59:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-indie-ui-irc 21:59:19 RRSAgent, make logs public 21:59:19 Zakim has joined #indie-ui 21:59:21 Zakim, this will be INDIE 21:59:21 ok, trackbot, I see WAI_Indie()5:00PM already started 21:59:22 Meeting: Independent User Interface Task Force Teleconference 21:59:22 Date: 20 February 2013 21:59:46 Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference 21:59:46 Chair: Janina_Sajka 21:59:46 agenda+ Editor's Update 21:59:46 agenda+ Events Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/2 21:59:49 agenda+ User Context Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/3 21:59:52 agenda+ Scribe for our Next Teleconference (on 6 March at 22:00Z) 21:59:55 agenda+ Be Done 22:00:04 + +1.412.901.aaaa 22:00:10 +??P3 22:00:50 zakim, who's on the phone? 22:00:50 On the phone I see Rich, ??P1, +1.412.901.aaaa, ??P3 22:01:02 zakim, ??P1 is Janina_Sajka 22:01:02 +Janina_Sajka; got it 22:01:28 jcraig has joined #indie-ui 22:01:29 zakim, ??P3 is Jason_White 22:01:29 +Jason_White; got it 22:02:35 +??P4 22:02:52 +[Apple] 22:02:55 zakim, +1.412.901.aaaa is Rich_Simpson 22:02:55 +Rich_Simpson; got it 22:03:30 +??P7 22:03:36 + +1.919.604.aabb 22:03:58 Zakim, Apple has jcraig 22:03:58 +jcraig; got it 22:04:09 zakim, ??P4 is Andy_Heath 22:04:09 +Andy_Heath; got it 22:04:23 zakim, aabb is Stephen_Woodburn 22:04:23 +Stephen_Woodburn; got it 22:07:33 MichaelC2 has joined #indie-ui 22:07:39 Rich_Simpson has joined #indie-ui 22:09:01 scribe: jasonjgw 22:09:55 Participants introduce themselves. 22:10:52 + +1.703.861.aacc 22:11:33 Ryladog has joined #indie-ui 22:11:46 zakim, aacc is Katie_Haritos-Shea 22:11:47 +Katie_Haritos-Shea; got it 22:11:58 Sorry late 22:12:51 zakim, who's on the phone? 22:12:51 On the phone I see Rich, Janina_Sajka, Rich_Simpson, Jason_White, Andy_Heath, [Apple], Michael_Cooper, Stephen_Woodburn, Katie_Haritos-Shea 22:12:53 [Apple] has jcraig 22:13:51 Andy_ has joined #indie-ui 22:16:16 yep :-) 22:16:54 chuckle 22:17:49 zakim, take up item 2 22:17:49 agendum 2. "Events Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/2" taken up [from janina] 22:18:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0001.html 22:19:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0002.html 22:19:08 Michael: there have been some substantive comments on the list. 22:19:25 Action: jcraig to address IDL feedback in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0001.html 22:19:25 Created ACTION-38 - Address IDL feedback in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0001.html [on James Craig - due 2013-02-27]. 22:19:28 The links are to substantive comments that need discussion. 22:20:12 ACTION: jcraig to address comments or raise issues from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0002.html 22:20:13 Created ACTION-39 - Address comments or raise issues from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0002.html [on James Craig - due 2013-02-27]. 22:20:17 This discussion should be scheduled for a meeting. 22:20:33 zakim, take up item 3 22:20:33 agendum 3. "User Context Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/3" taken up [from janina] 22:20:52 q+ 22:21:20 Janina: raises the scope issues introduced in the last meeting. 22:22:39 q? 22:22:45 ack jc 22:23:01 q: 22:23:03 q+ 22:23:07 James: it is necessary to keep the user contexts spec narrowly focused. Some of the points raised in discussion are important and others remain outside the scope of the working group. 22:23:45 q+ 22:23:49 ack r 22:24:11 Rich: those who joined the working group do not wish to limit the contexts to operating system features. GPII is a source that should be supported. The user contexts has a much longer timeline than the events module. 22:24:20 ack jc 22:24:51 q+ 22:25:41 q+ 22:26:19 James notes that the timeline will be long due to privacy questions. There are preferences that can be changed in operating systems today, and a Web application should have access to those existing preferences. There are additional preferences (e.g., captions) that can be provided by the Web application; this kind of preference 22:27:09 is not programmatically determinable, in which case a UI or other module is necessary to collect such preferences. This can extend the time-frame significantly. 22:27:33 Janina notes the requirements for two implementations at the CR stage. 22:27:34 q+ to talk about v1 and v.next and triaging requirements 22:27:49 ack ry 22:28:03 q+ 22:28:14 Katie maintains that if we're not calling for implementation of a UI or other mechanism then it won't happen and thus suggests that these mechanisms are important. 22:28:19 ack ri 22:29:58 q+ 22:30:02 q+ to discuss the optional taxonomy parameter 22:30:06 ack mi 22:30:06 MichaelC, you wanted to talk about v1 and v.next and triaging requirements 22:30:09 Rich maintains that asking for a simplified interface due to a user's cognitive disability should be within scope, for example, and a basic set of preferences should be included that a user can easily set. Needs/preferences should not be limited to waht is implemented in operating systems at the present moment. 22:30:43 Michael suggests that we should distinguish between the current and next versions of the spec, and that items can be moved between these versions as work progresses. 22:31:01 ack jc 22:31:01 jcraig, you wanted to discuss the optional taxonomy parameter 22:31:22 q+ 22:32:17 q+ 22:32:25 James notes that there is a mechanism to request an optional taxonomy, and the basic list (need/preference taxonomy) can be extended by a browser, e.g., to list parameters from GPII, and a settings UI can be added as a browser extension. 22:32:59 This interface could even be provided by third-party tools. 22:33:31 This extension facility allows a larger vocabulary to be implemented without including it in the main spec. 22:33:57 ack a 22:34:29 ack ri 22:34:33 Andy notes that the proposed vocabulary is a small subset of the full set of GPII terms. It won't be feasible to discover how implementable some of these are until more work is done. 22:34:45 q+ to use "simplifiedInterface" as an example; and respond to Andy's comment that it's easy to "throw stuff out of the spec" later 22:36:26 Rich distinguishes the extensive support provided by GPII for learning contexts from the smaller need/preference set suitable for browsers and mobile devices. He argues that the IndieUI Events are not implemented in any browser either. 22:36:57 ack jan 22:37:32 q+ 22:37:33 Janina urges the need to build consensus and hopes to avoid majority voting. She proposes to conduct an item-by-item analysis to consider which should be included. 22:37:38 ack j 22:37:38 jcraig, you wanted to use "simplifiedInterface" as an example; and respond to Andy's comment that it's easy to "throw stuff out of the spec" later 22:37:42 ack jan 22:38:47 q+ 22:39:09 James notes the indeterminate meaning of a concept such as "simplified interface", and that such ill-defined terms shouldn't be included in the spec. 22:39:20 ack an 22:40:41 Andy maintains that how an author responds to such a request (for a simplified interface) shouldn't be specified. He agrees with Janina that a case-by-case analysis of preferences should be carried out. 22:40:44 ack ri 22:41:06 q+ 22:41:32 ack j 22:41:32 ack j 22:41:33 -Janina_Sajka 22:41:33 Rich argues that a simplified version of the page (with fwer controls to allow the user to accomplish a task) is a well-defined notion that can be specified. 22:41:34 q+ 22:42:36 q+ 22:43:09 James gives the example of a "simplified interface" setting which is on because one site, e.g., shows 5 lines at a time, but anther makes very different changes taht the user doesn't desire; the user would have to toggle the setting when visiting different sites. 22:43:10 ack r 22:43:16 q+ rich 22:43:17 q+ 22:44:07 ack and 22:44:11 Katie suggests taht notions such as plain text can be well defined and specified and this is easier than that of a simplified interface. 22:44:13 q- rich 22:45:11 Andy maintains that surely having one site which the user can't use is better than having two. 22:45:52 James is concerned with the generalization of preferences that apply to one Web site to preferences implemented differently by different sites. The spec should be written to avoid misinterpretation. 22:46:10 ack r 22:47:01 q+ 22:47:58 Rich reminds us that one reason why learning/cognitive issues haven't been addressed is that for each person, the needs are different for each person. We need to be able to require a page that has a limited nmber of controls so that a user can understand it; this is not a perfect fit [with any particular user's needs] but it can be well defined and specified. 22:48:01 q+ to suggest that we might want to review / edit requirements http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements to see what we think should be in scope of v.1 22:48:03 ack a 22:49:03 Andy suggests that the normative/informative distinction could be used to address some of these concerns. 22:49:04 q+ 22:49:05 ack me 22:49:05 MichaelC, you wanted to suggest that we might want to review / edit requirements http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements to see what we think should be in 22:49:08 ... scope of v.1 22:50:15 Michael reminds us that there are no rules as to whether best practices should be in the spec as informative material or whether they should be in an external document. He suggests going back to the requirements and seeking agreement on what they are and how they are prioritized. 22:50:31 ack j 22:50:37 +1 22:51:46 q+ to talk about coordination with other organizations, and which ones we instantiate in IndieUI: User Context 22:52:13 q+ 22:52:35 James distinguishes the issue of dealing with preferences that don't exist in a mainstram interface from that of defining a set of preferences associated with simplification requirements that can be well defined and which are not amenable to inconsistent interpretations by implementors. 22:54:03 He suggests that browser extensions can provide a pathway for implementations to move into a browser proper once it has matured (when it becomes popular enough to justify native support). For 1.0 he recommends confining the spec to preferences that already exist. 22:55:12 ack me 22:55:12 MichaelC, you wanted to talk about coordination with other organizations, and which ones we instantiate in IndieUI: User Context 22:55:13 ack an 22:55:14 Michael notes that other efforts are underway in regard to preferences. He suggests enhancing our coordination efforts with organizations involved in such work to define exactly what the preferences are. 22:55:47 q+ to discuss the political will 22:57:49 Andy argues that analyzing a "simplified interface" requirement into more specific requirements introduces dependencies on specific technologies (as has been seen in the development of other specs in this area) and that the way in which an application responds to the simplification request should be left to the application developers to determine. 22:58:07 ack j 22:58:07 jcraig, you wanted to discuss the political will 22:58:14 Michael notes the time and suggests planning next steps. 22:59:25 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #indie-ui 22:59:28 q+ 23:00:17 James argues that the less contact there is with what is implemented in current UAs and operating systems, the less interest there will be from potential implementors. He suggests addressing currently implemented preferences in 1.0 and then specifying other well defined preferences for the next version. 23:00:48 q+ 23:01:07 ack r 23:01:16 Michael notes that we could use the "at risk" designation to distinguish features that need to be examined by reviewers for feasibility of implementation. 23:02:05 Rich notes that the needs/preferences brought to the group are all easily implemented; they are not general or theoretical. 23:02:11 ack an 23:03:34 Michael notes that there are common goals but debate about how to get there. It isn't clear which requirements apply to Events and which to User Contexts; we should clarify this and engage in a discussion of requirements specific to user contexts. 23:04:33 He suggests a fresh examination of requirements before the next meeting. 23:05:16 He notes the desirability of coordinating with IMS and GPII. 23:05:22 q+ 23:05:41 James proposes to edit the spec to include those parts of the proposal from Rich and Andy which are not controversial. 23:06:49 ack a 23:06:51 In respose to a question from Rich, there is discussion of which sections of the spec should be reviewed now - James recommends reviewing section 1 now. 23:07:48 Andy notes the relevance of work takng place in a range of standardization efforts and suggests that cordinating with them would be premature currently. 23:07:51 -Stephen_Woodburn 23:09:06 Michael: James will perform edits that will help to clarify (when discussed) which proposed needs/preferences are controversial and which are not. 23:09:20 Rich agrees that editing should be carried out as proposed. 23:09:40 q+ 23:09:48 q- 23:10:21 There is discussion of the issues list and how relevant items should be addressed. 23:11:09 Michael: he and Janina will propose next steps to carry forward this discussion. Discussion to be continued on list and at the next (regularly scheduled) meeting. 23:11:51 -[Apple] 23:11:53 Meeting concludes. 23:11:54 -Rich_Simpson 23:11:56 -Katie_Haritos-Shea 23:11:59 -Andy_Heath 23:12:03 zakim, list attendees 23:12:03 As of this point the attendees have been Rich, Janina_Sajka, Jason_White, Rich_Simpson, Michael_Cooper, +1.919.604.aabb, jcraig, Andy_Heath, Stephen_Woodburn, +1.703.861.aacc, 23:12:06 ... Katie_Haritos-Shea 23:12:06 -Rich 23:12:25 rssagent, make minutes 23:12:37 rrsagent, make minutes 23:12:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-indie-ui-minutes.html jasonjgw 23:13:32 -Michael_Cooper 23:13:34 -Jason_White 23:13:35 WAI_Indie()5:00PM has ended 23:13:35 Attendees were Rich, Janina_Sajka, Jason_White, Rich_Simpson, Michael_Cooper, +1.919.604.aabb, jcraig, Andy_Heath, Stephen_Woodburn, +1.703.861.aacc, Katie_Haritos-Shea 23:17:05 rrsagent, bye 23:17:05 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-indie-ui-actions.rdf : 23:17:05 ACTION: jcraig to address IDL feedback in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0001.html [1] 23:17:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-indie-ui-irc#T22-19-25 23:17:05 ACTION: jcraig to address comments or raise issues from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui-comments/2013JanMar/0002.html [2] 23:17:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/20-indie-ui-irc#T22-20-12 23:17:05 zakim, bye 23:17:05 Zakim has left #indie-ui