Web and Mobile Interest Group Teleconference -- 26 Mar 2014

<dka> yo

<dom> trackbot, prepare meeting

<trackbot> Date: 26 March 2014

<ernesto> Zakim: ??P9 is me

<ernesto> zakim mute me

<scribe> Scribe: Marcos

<scribe> Scribenick: marcosc

<schuki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-mobile/2014Mar/0019.html

schuki: lots of things have been happening over the last month
... we have a lot to cover - including new agenda items sent to the list

Payments

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/payments-use-cases

schuki: just going to share our repo ^^^
... there was a payments workshop this week in Paris. It tried to tackle the various issues around payment on the Web. It had large participation from Operators, browser vendors, and banking sector folks
... I ran through some of the things that were relevant to our group while there

<schuki> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/agenda.html

schuki: payment workshop agenda ^^^
... lots of different topics were covered. We talked mostly about the issues with payments online - on the session I moderated, we talked about the user experience and the challenges there with privacy, security, experience, etc.
... identity and security were things that kept coming up
... identity has been a big focus at various orgs outside the w3c... I see it becoming a big thing at the w3c
... mobile user experience with regards to payments came up a lot
... it was not as discussed as much as I expected

dka: there are issues, for instance, like when you are making a payment there is no UA chrome to indicate to the user that they are making a secure payment. There was also issues around typing in passwords and long credit card numbers... no consensus that we should be addressing this at the w3c

schuki: yes, so there was questions about how comprehensible these interfaces are, etc.

<ernesto> typing, sorry, wrong place

<Zakim> ernesto, you wanted to comment on "Trusted UI"

<ernesto> I was going to comment that Trusted UI was raised about knowing where you are

<Zakim> tobie__, you wanted to mention about creating UX docs similar to what Marcos has been doing for app case studies

<ernesto> but it's also going to be about having shared session across different apps with different cookie jars

<ernesto> whihc

<ernesto> which mozPay solved too

tobie__: talking about UX, the type of work that Marcos did with netinfo might also be good to do with Web payments. Some non-normative guidelines would be very helpful there.

<ernesto> +1 tobie__'s comment that we need a doc about current status and landscape

<ernesto> and requirements

<schuki> marcosc: i agree

<schuki> .. we need to deal with this as well

<schuki> ... but it does get quite complicated, and i would like to tackle this whole thing,

<schuki> ... we're trying to deal with this in the manifest spec

<ernesto> in my opinion, we should try to look how to enable seamless UX in platforms with shared cookie jars and per-app cookie jars

<schuki> marcosc: to tobies point, we did send an email tp payments list

<schuki> ... currently we have a doc

<schuki> ... but they're all missing the user exp

<ernesto> also, this is not only payments related. OAuth flows needs this too

<schuki> ... doc is good, does reveal the interesting things, but doesn't get to core of the matter

<schuki> ... cryptocurrencies is a good point too

schuki: I agree with tobie__'s suggestion

<schuki> marcosc: it's good to keep the use cases broad

schuki: at the top of the use cases document you can now see an amalgamation of the use cases. I've also marked the relevant to mobile.

<schuki> ... desktop etc

schuki: we have a good relationship with that web payments group. We should continue working with them on this

bshambaugh: had a question about what a primitive is when talking about user interfaces?

<Zakim> tobie__, you wanted to discuss main takeaways

schuki: we should keep the standardization aspects very simple. Robin suggested that keeping things simple through using web intents - like just a "pay" intent. Moving further from that, when talking about "wallet" - it got complicated about what defines a wallet... it was the feeling that this should be an implementation detail rather than something to be standardized

tobie__: these were my takeaways. On the one side, there are a bunch of items that came up over the two days - some primitives: intent to pay and a data model to describe receipts. Work on these primitives could start now amongst different working groups.

<dka> Some stuff from my wrap-up notes relevant to webmob: Intents-to-pay, NFC APis, use of push API in auth scenarios, web crypto, webapps work on request auto-complete, geofencing use cases, secure element API in sysapps…

tobie__: second point, there needs to be a longer term plan ... it would be great if we had a group dedicated payments

<tobie__> +1 on Wallet being the wrong abstraction.

dka: it's a wrong assumption that we need a "wallet" abstraction to do payments - as we can already do payments on the web.

<ernesto> +100

schuki: let's follow on with tobie__'s idea

<dka> “Buying Starbucks™ coffee with my Starbucks™ App…”

schuki: does anyone have anything to add?

<dka> (in Paris)

dom: do we have a clear set of next steps

<dka> +1 to documenting some user experiences

schuki: the next step is to coordinate with Manu

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/payments-use-cases/issues/13

<dka> For the minutes: my point about wallets is that - whilst (ahem) a wallet may indeed be a useful abstraction for some payment scenarios, it’s not necessary for all scenarios. An example of a scenario in which is not not useful would be use of a payment mechanism within a specific application environment, e.g. a loyalty-card-based-app like the Starbucks™ app example or e.g. within the Apple store app (using an app to buy goods in-store).

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-mobile/2014Mar/0004.html

The email above has the questions

Installable webapps

<schuki> marcosc: i put together the document

<schuki> ... looks at usage from apple

<schuki> ... apple web app capable apps

<dka> Natasha you can give me an action to contribute to that document on payment scenarios as well.

<schuki> ... and whether these things are useful

<schuki> ... and they weren't

<schuki> marcosc: next steps is to publish as a note

Manifest

<schuki> marcosc: still trying to get implementers interested

<schuki> ... next week meeting in san jose

<schuki> ... i'll present this there

<schuki> ... see if more interest there

<schuki> ... moz pushing

<schuki> dka: i would like to talk about it in extensible web summit

<schuki> http://lanyrd.com/2014/extensible-web-summit/

<schuki> marcosc: its allowing apps to be installed

<schuki> ... radical shift from before

<dka> (registration for that is open and we still have space available by the way - 4/4 in San Francisco, hosted by Adobe)

<schuki> ... it's an evolutionary approach

<schuki> dka: when does it become real?

<tobie__> +1 to bridging the gap between web apps and installable web apps

<schuki> marcosc: we're limiting to the basic stuff, not pushing it too much

<schuki> ... hopefully it will become a reality soon

<schuki> dka: discussion with samsung guys, sounded like they may put into their android browser

<schuki> dka: samsung said they will be interested if it's W3C

<schuki> ... good to discuss with them

<dom> +1 to publish research as IG NOTE

https://github.com/w3c-webmob/installable-webapps/tree/gh-pages/ios_standalone

<schuki> dka: is iOS really that dire?

<schuki> marcosc: yes!

"Despite these 1097 sites claiming they can be used as standalone, what we found was that the majority of web apps (90%, or 324 out of 360) can not be used as standalone. Only a tiny fraction (10%, or 36 out of 360) are able to run as standalone - and 28% of those had significant limitations (described below). There is, in fact, a greater percentage (12%) of desktop sites masquerading as installable web apps than there are actual standalone app

lications. "

<schuki> dka: might want to be careful on negativity in a note

<schuki> marcosc: apple and firefox know these things are broken, so we need to know how to fix things on the browser side

<schuki> ... devs want to do this but browser vendors isn't catering to them

<schuki> ... manifest should do this

<schuki> ... so we need to push on this

<Zakim> dka, you wanted to ask about ios installable webapps

<dka> +1 to publishing it as an IG note

https://github.com/w3c-webmob/installable-webapps/tree/gh-pages/ios_standalone#recommendations-to-implementersw3c

<schuki> marcosc: we have a recommendations section

<schuki> tobie__: how about focusing on the most successful apps

<schuki> ... and whether this gave different results

<schuki> marcosc: this is what we did

<schuki> ... the top 20k

top 78000K

https://github.com/w3c-webmob/installable-webapps/tree/gh-pages/ios_standalone#methods-and-limitations

<schuki> marcosc: methodology outlined ^

<schuki> tobie__: this is sound

<schuki> ... if what we want to look at top 100k apps

<schuki> ... but not a good sample of what users use

<schuki> marcosc: maybe could add to limitations

<schuki> tobie__: +1 to work, it's awesome

Identity

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/identity

schuki: repo ^^^
... it was raised on the list as something we should look at
... in the payments identity came up a lot, so I'm keen to get this going again
... however, I'm already working on two items so I can't lead it.
... I know there are people from AT&T and Telenor interested in this area.

<schuki> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID

schuki: some of you might already be aware of the WebID work.
... the feedback that I'm hearing is that it's great as an academic piece, but needs more work to be applicable to a wider web context
... I'm interested to hear if people have any comments about identity and how we should progress

<dom> Manu blogged recently on this FWIW http://manu.sporny.org/2014/credential-based-login/

shane: I've been talking to people about this topic. I know there is a long history covering this space. I think we should start the work on this group.

schuki: I would like to be involved or someone from the GSMA should be involved. We are very interested in this area at the GSMA - lots of folks looking at identity there. We could have some good inputs.
... but I'll let Shane coordinate with Manu about how we can proceed.

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/identity/wiki/Use-Case-List

schuki: is people can think about identity or have something to add to the discussion, please use the wiki ^^^

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/offline

Offline

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/ServiceWorker

<schuki> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/ServiceWorker/tree/master/examples

schuki: this is the correct repo - we've forked it from the official one
... we are interested in doing the examples
... they are being standardized as part of the WebApps WG.

MC: they haven't actually done that yet :)

schuki: by doing the examples, we can help verify the spec
... we are waiting from browser vendors to put something out

MC: Mozilla is also trying to get something out
... we should have something out at the same time as Chrome

permissions

schuki: anything happening in that space?

dom: not particularly. The TAG was supposed to look at this too.

dka: we have not done much of yet at the TAG yet
... I'm going to add it to the agenda to the TAG F2F

schuki: it came up also at EdgeConf
... if a member organization wants to help lead it, it would be great

<dka> thanks though!

network info

<schuki> marcosc: ready to publish, sent request to chairs list

<schuki> ... hopefully get out on 27th

<schuki> dom: please send email to phillip

AOB

schuki: no other comments

<schuki> great call this month :D

meeting adjourned

<schuki> coffee & lunch!!!!

<schuki> um.....

- DRAFT -

Web and Mobile Interest Group Teleconference

26 Mar 2014

Attendees

Contents