See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 May 2013
<janina> Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference
<janina> James, Keep trying. There's about 5 of us on the call so far
<MichaelC> scribe: Ryladog
<janina> scribe: katie
<MichaelC> scribe: Ryladog
Agenda 1
JS: Who can make it to China for
TPAC this year, I would like to know this week please
... Near Hong Kong for Airrports - Nov 11 the through 15th
JC: May not be able to go if PF folks may not be going - Indie UI to justify the trip I need to show which technologies
KHS: I May be able to come, as my company is there
JW: If I can find money and time
JC: The hours might be better for teleconferencing in for ausiies
<jcraig> ACTION-13?
<trackbot> ACTION-13 -- James Craig to add event for moving focus to app toolbar(s), palettes, etc. -- due 2012-10-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/13
<jcraig> ACTION-14?
<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- James Craig to add directional navigations event with 8-way directional order property (e.g. n, ne, e, se, …) -- due 2012-11-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/14
JC: Late last night Peter Harms changed the camelcase - main chnages to events Action 13, 14 and 15 that rae all about focus change events
<jcraig> ACTION-15?
<trackbot> ACTION-15 -- James Craig to add logical previous/next event (not tied to directional focus event) (maybe focusNextRequest and focusPreviousRequest?) -- due 2012-11-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/15
JC: I cteateed a new UI that has
events for all of these type - direction, linear and ? focus
change
... I think there are issues with standard focus developer
undertsnading using mthe standard browser focus events - focus
next, last, etc would only be useful for a subset
... If it is not in the DON there is no way in the browser
standard focus events - so you would use the UI events for
this
<jcraig> Interface: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/default/src/indie-ui-events.html#UIFocusRequestEvent
<jcraig> Event types: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/default/src/indie-ui-events.html#UIFocusRequestEvents
RS: You want to give focus to something that is not in the DOM at all?
JC: No let me explaina a bit - in ARIA we habve this concept of talking about a dataset that is larger than that which is represented in the DOM
<andy> i seem to have geek kicked out
JC: Say you were on rows of 20 of 100 and you want to ove to row 21
RS: So you wan t the DOM to go fetch it?
<jcraig> Todo: explain these can cover focus changes when the element to focus is not yet loaded in the DOM or yet focusable (for example, in list or table views where the entire dataset is not displayed), or non-linear focus shortcuts or overrides when linear focus is not possible (for example, jumping directly from a contenteditable region to the editing toolbar, when Tab and Shift+Tab mean other things).
JC: I have notes in the link for how this i smeant to be used
<jcraig> Todo: explain these can cover focus changes when the element to focus is not yet loaded in the DOM or yet focusable (for example, in list or table views where the entire dataset is not displayed), or non-linear focus shortcuts or overrides when linear focus is not possible (for example, jumping directly from a contenteditable region to the editing toolbar, when Tab and Shift+Tab mean other things).
JW: Waht would the AT ir UA need to know in order to get to DOM 3 events?
JC: All of these would be trigger
if the event handler was registered and the actions attribute
on the element node
... Like action equals....
<jcraig> uiactions="linearfocusrequest"
JW: I think I understand it
JC: I will request the web
application what is the next - in the list or table view
... This goes back to eventlsiter, vs, event receiver, event
target, etc
... The attribute does not need to be on every list item
JW: stanadrd bubbling up
JC: One reason for the event receiver (@uiactions) is to avoid a performance bottleneck
RS: Makes sens e to me
JS: anything else James?
JC: fixing typos
... that is all of the mrmative edits
AH: ActuallyI would like to mix
up the items a bit
... I got the task of reviewing MC prorposal which was
reviewing the value. I like the shape of this.What we lost is
the abolity to have this easoily understood in realtion to
other models
... That was overtaken by events - this schema.org thing has
been posted now.
... Others in the W3C understand this better. This proposal is
supposed to be a vocabularry which will be associated with
Content with metadata
... And , my feeling we eed to think about how well how much
this requirment matches what we need
... This metadata is one half of ahwt we had - but since we
started and took this in on driection and another grouop has
taken this is a different dirrection
... Do we want to have a closer match?
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say nothing stops us from providing informative mappings to other efforts, in appendix, wiki, or other resources - just that shouldn´t drive the lexography
MC: Nothing stops us for refering to external sources
<jcraig> HTML-ISSUE-76?
MC: We haven tdone much reqqs for
user contexts - mwe thought we had. Chossing properties that
map to other requirements.
... I think we move this to the reqs discussion
AH: I do not knpw what external
means
... Judy posted a link
<andy> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to mention HTML-ISSUE-76 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76 and to ask what it means to have a "Controversial Working Draft" status?
JS: your question is: will the W3C be doing something formally to adopt this eterenal soucre\
JC: I do not know about this
much
... HTML MIgtrated can be used for as a formla W3C Working
Draft
RS: Theere is not really that much stuff in there
JS: the reason for moving microdata forward the RDF sort of went forward
AH: I am not talking about the microdatat I am talking about
<richardschwerdtfeger> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
JC: Schema.org and this is different - this is - had mat=rkup that is using marked up thsat shows microdata
RS: This is almost matchingthe
preference resource metadat that we started with
... It looks like they have done aa dirvititvie of the Access
for All 3
... whatever app is pulling solution inf ront of the user - we
should asosociate whith
... Andy, does that make sense
<andy> trying to get back
MC: Andy was dropped by zakim
JS: lets wait for him
RS: Michea; I do not know how
this is going to work
... We would want some sort of mapping
JC: Thi s looks like meatdata for
external resources - not necessarily what is on the web
page
... the reason I corught up issue 76 or 26
JS: I think we should dis-assocaite from any of ther data for now
AH; I agree
JS: It is not a good idea b/c of what is hapening with HTML
RS: I cannot put anything more in my ear
JS; I think I recll someone mentioning Dublim Core
JW: maybe OBE but if we are
looking to provide a way of searching for resources the vocab
used nay be different than how to make something accessible to
a user. I do not see a one to on mapping
... It is not clear to me what the ststus is of the document
and what working group and the levels of adoption
JC: I think the binding layer (HTML Microdata) is in the W3C space, but not the taxonomy (schema.org)
AH: I do not really know - I
haave just heard this and then suddenly it show sup in the W3C
space
... I agree with you Jason - there should not be a a one to one
relationship ere
... Once upon a time there was a mapping between these two -
but they have diverged.The question is do we need to change a
name but not match wehere it is useful to match
JS: is this the meatdata vocab to adopt?
AH: taht is a good question
... this was designed along with the same AMOUNT OF DESIGN
GOALS
<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to mention that I think this is complementary, not exclusionary to IndieUI User Context
JS: Michael - pleas etake over
JC: I echoed what Jasomn
mentioned it looks like this is mostly for indexing of media
conttmet
... maybe I am simplifying it - like what kind of adaptations
are avaliable - but nit necessarrity item sthat would be need
for a user context
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say as we tackle requirements we should review existing vocabularies; Andy seems like a good stuckee with that ACTION:)
AH: I dont think there is a one to one mapping - but soem of the feilds are useful. The alt and auditory for text, etc - which means if you have that available and you do not have that ability on that devices it could go out and fetch that transfromation'
MC: I thin kit is a good idea as
we tackle a reqiuirement we look at external resources - ewht
we want to map to and not map to withou breaking anything
... Andy want to do a more formal review of what is out there
for our requirements -
AH: I would like to take your
proppoal binary value pairs and look ka t what would happen to
that
... I might take a go at that ifit were mapped
MC: and the reason is that it would map but I do not propose that we use that mapping -
AH: I would like to see what of the items are useful
<jcraig> ACTION-32?
<trackbot> ACTION-32 -- Andy Heath to send suggested text about implict vs explict user settings and sending preferences even if device does not support the feature, the web app might (see minutes discussion) -- due 2012-12-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/32
<MichaelC> ACTION: Andy to review key/value pair proposal in relation to http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-indie-ui-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Review key/value pair proposal in relation to http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility [on Andy Heath - due 2013-05-08].
<jcraig> Trackbot, close ACTION-32
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-32 Send suggested text about implict vs explict user settings and sending preferences even if device does not support the feature, the web app might (see minutes discussion).
AH: It is also Called the LRMI - but I cant find that anywhwrer
JW: I thin kthis is what Jason was saying. The key value should be - it is important to seperate our sytax from the propertoes or mapping to expernal vocabs
AH: I think that is true
... Rich and I agrued - we were modeling some ontological
relationship - we have no way of knowing
<MichaelC> action-42?
<trackbot> ACTION-42 -- Michael Cooper to consolidate use cases -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/42
MC: Andy we are swiching item until you return
<andy> trying to get back
<MichaelC> action-13?
<trackbot> ACTION-13 -- James Craig to add event for moving focus to app toolbar(s), palettes, etc. -- due 2012-10-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/13
<MichaelC> action-14?
<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- James Craig to add directional navigations event with 8-way directional order property (e.g. n, ne, e, se, …) -- due 2012-11-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/14
<MichaelC> action-15?
<trackbot> ACTION-15 -- James Craig to add logical previous/next event (not tied to directional focus event) (maybe focusNextRequest and focusPreviousRequest?) -- due 2012-11-08 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/actions/15
JC: action 13, 14van 15 I think we can close based on what isaid at the beginning of hecall
<jcraig> Trackbot, close ACTION-13
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-13 Add event for moving focus to app toolbar(s), palettes, etc..
MC: Does anyone object to closing those three
<jcraig> Trackbot, close ACTION-14
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-14 Add directional navigations event with 8-way directional order property (e.g. n, ne, e, se, …).
?
<jcraig> Trackbot, close ACTION-15
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-15 Add logical previous/next event (not tied to directional focus event) (maybe focusNextRequest and focusPreviousRequest?).
JC: Action 29 can be closed he
sent to the lsit and I responded to - some were out of scope
for 1.0 and it has been a coupke of months - the last
discussion was in Jan - I think it is closable
... There were out of scope things such as...
MC: The action is closed and he can persoanlly pushit
JS: MOre about database functionality which is out of scope
<jcraig> Trackbot, close ACTION-29
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-29 Send list of Opera use cases and suggest requirements for mainstream events.
MC: any objections ?
NONE
<scribe> Scribe: I cannot hear
AH: (Scribe cannot hear)
<andy> its because I'm away in a hote;
JC: Andy consider using another VOIP provider?
<andy> I don't have the issue at home
MC: Sorry Andy can you please type your comments into iRC?
<andy> i am typing them
Sorry, Andy we cannot hear you
MC: OK whike Andy is typing andy other comments?
JC: I think Janina watedus to get an action out of this - we could have Andy conyinue to looook at this which might be OK since it is almost time tto close the call
<andy> it won't let me kn now
<andy> the conferene is restricted at this time
<andy> however
<andy> its because I;m away
JW: Let us pereate the syntax and preoperties question and that we make a decision seperately - can we get a survey?
<andy> i only get this problem in notes;
<andy> can u guys see this ?
JC: the last call the consensus seemed to be that several of us were pushing this key value pairs - there are features in these external taxonomies
<andy> i'm home for the best call
<andy> next
<andy> sorry
<andy> 17 euros the connection cost me too :-)
JC: The isseu that Andy hass brought has not been about the synrtax but rather the features
<andy> fine
RSL I like the key value piars because it simplifies everything'
<andy> Katie I agree
<jcraig> s/there are features in these external taxonomies/there are additional features in these external taxonomies that we should continue to consider, but there is nothing that prevents us from adopting them via a key/value pair syntax/
<andy> that was the point I was making
MC: Andy does have an Actio nItem
from this - we have come to an end of e=what we can tak
aboy
... Next meeting willmbe May 15th at theis time or and hour
before now
<andy> I'll continue it next time
MC: Please send anyquestions to the list
MC; Itis the same time two weeks from today
<jcraig> MC: I think we have "soft consensus" on the syntax, if not "formal consensus" for the syntax. Will take the taxonomy features on case-by-case- basis.
<andy> sorry = can't do anything about cr.p internet in hotels =-thatsk all
<andy> ]
<andy> bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/One thing is to avoid/One reason for the event receiver (@uiactions) is to avoid/ Succeeded: s/action=/uiactions=/ Succeeded: s/event receiver, etc/event receiver, event target, etc/ Succeeded: s/thois scema.org thimg/this schema.org thing/ Succeeded: s/binding layer is in the w#c space/binding layer (HTML Microdata) is in the W3C space, but not the taxonomy (schema.org)/ Succeeded: s/W#C/W3C/ Succeeded: s/Andyuse other VIOP provider/Andy consider using another VOIP provider?/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/there are features in these external taxonomies/there are additional features in these external taxonomies that we should continue to consider, but there is nothing that prevents us from adopting them via a key/value pair syntax/ Found Scribe: Ryladog Found Scribe: katie Found Scribe: Ryladog Inferring ScribeNick: Ryladog Found Scribe: I cannot hear Scribes: Ryladog, katie, I cannot hear Default Present: Janina_Sajka, Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Jason_White, Rich, Andy_Heath, jcraig Present: Janina_Sajka Cooper Katie_Haritos-Shea Jason_White Rich Andy_Heath jcraig Regrets: Richard_Simpson Found Date: 01 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-indie-ui-minutes.html People with action items: andy WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]