W3C

MBUI WG Telecon

28 Jun 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Dave, Jaroslav, Fabio, Davide, Joelle, Nick_Kaklanis
Regrets
Gaelle, Heiko, CTIC, Paolo
Chair
Fabio
Scribe
Dave

Contents


<scribe> scribe: Dave

<scribe> scribenick: dsr

<joelle> for some reason, I can't join the telco. I am not in my office and it seems that from the place i am currently, I can't type in the code

regret+ Paolo

Glossary

Fabio summarises where we left off in last week's call.

Jaroslav: we were due to review the entries for consistency and to see which entries could be dropped.

Fabio: the face to face meeting is coming up soon and will last for one and a half days, we need to think about the agenda.

We should offer Heiko some time to describe Red Hat's interest in model-based UI, what do you think

<hbraun> dsr: yes, maube

<hbraun> i was thinking about that

<hbraun> i can do a presentation of what we currewntly do with it, if it's of interest to the group

Yes, that would be great!

<hbraun> dsr: should I propose that to the group?

Fabio: the discussion of the glossary takes a lot of time ...

<hbraun> dsr: +1

Joelle: we could start with the AUI, and it would take perhaps half a day.

<hbraun> great, thanks. sorry for being absent in the past few weeks

<hbraun> i need to catch up with the latest discussions

Fabio and Joelle discuss the work needed for the use case for the AUI.

Perhaps this could be provided by UCL, no?

Fabio: UCL will attend the F2F?

Jaroslav: yes, they say they plan to.

Fabio: there was somc discussion about the template feature, and whether it should be part of the AUI, but it doesn't seem to be a critical part of the language.

Joelle: I am fine with the new definition of the word "device" in the glossary. Peripheral sounds good, but I haven't had time to check more.

Fabio: we also agreed to look at which entries could be dropped.

Joelle: we don't want to lose the work on entries we drop, so I suggest we keep them in a separate document.

Jaroslav: we can discuss the details at the face to face.

We can discuss who we think the target audience is as a guide to reviewing the entries.

Fabio: some of us were in London this week for meetings, and Dave said that it is important for us to get greater industry involvement if the MBUI WG is to be rechartered at the end of this year.

Joelle: from my side, I don't see a lot of industry interest just now.

We have plenty of work still to do, e.g. concrete UI models. Companies aren't yet aware of task models and abstract UI, which will take longer to get general acceptance for everyday development processes.

Fabio: what about accessibility?

Model-Based UI is good for creating accessible user interfaces.

Joelle mentions some small companies which might be interested, and then we have Thalys.

She could reach out to an old contact in Thalys.

Fabio: we have one and a half days, so we can find some time for discussion on the future of the MBUI WG, perhaps one hour, but no more..

Joelle: we have a telecon next week, so I could work some more on the Glossary

Suggest focusing on the terms that are crossed so that we will be more efficient at the f2f.

Jaroslav: we should put the draft agenda and start time on the F2F wiki page.

Starting at 9am and continuing as late as we like

Dave: we should include an agenda item on the new Ubiquitous Application Design Community Group which is intended to complement the role of the MBUI WG.

We should also plan to discuss what is needed to move the Task and Abstract UI model specifications along the W3C Recommendation track e.g. Last Call Working Draft and Candidate Recommendation steps.

UAD CG -- http://www.w3.org/community/uad/

Jaraslav: some of my colleagues may be interested, I will talk with them.

Dave: we need to think about what it would mean to demonstrate interoperabiity across all features in the task and abstract UI model specs.

Next week, we will continue the discussion on the glossary and the F2F agenda.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]