See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 May 2014
<janina_> Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: Rich
janina: the other item I wanted
to pickup up would be a move to github
... our charter says to use mercurial
michael: it depends on the level
of objection
... we don’t have a formal obligation to stick to it.
janina: we could amend it by group consensus?
michael: yes, if nobody objects.
rich: so you want to amend the work statement to not use mercurial?
janina: I would like to propose on list to switch to github
rich: my opinion is that if James and Michael want to go to github it is fine with me.
jason: you can get a clone of the
history at any moment and it is the most widely used
today.
... in terms of source code control
janina: any objection to change the consensus process from 7 days to 48 hours?
michael: the one consideration it
would be bandying about whether this joint effort with web
events should be one with web apps.
... if we are not pursuing it then we have nothing to
consider
janina: I don’t think Judy is concerned. she has a package of charters going in that does not include indie-ui
michael: we need to determine if there would need to be a new task force with webapps.
janina: if we get to the CFC for events … it will be today or tonight to get it out
jcraig: what if we do a
preannounce CFC that IndieUI User Context is getting ready for
a first public working draft and people should start reviewing
now
... we would be giving 7 days notice just not 7 days formal
notice for CFC
michael: for publications that
might be a pattern we adopt
... we have it so that decisions are held in 7 day review
janina: I know people are shocked
by PF 48 hours but it has never been an issue
... I just wanted to explore this.
... it was doug schepers ….
... anything else for 2 minutes:
janina: we expect to meet at TPAC
and we expect to meet with webapps.
... nothing more to add then.
... Indie-UI meets early in the week
<jcraig> October 27-28?
michael: wcag is meeting early in
the week
... so I will have split duty
janina: we will see more when we get closer
rich: I will need to meet with the SVG working group part of the time.
michael: SVG, I believe is
meeting later in the week.
... it is a space evailable sort of thing
... some teams may need to be moved.
jcraig: since last meeting I
finished up the first public working draft of user context. I
am still working on the first draft of events
... I have cleared much of the afternoon so maybe I can get at
this today
... I added in an example user prompt image
<jcraig> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/default/src/img/example_dialog.svg
jcraig: this is a diaog with a
shared media player.
... this is one example where they application may prompt the
user for properties
... I have actually addded the aria roles in SVG
... in several modern browsers it will come up as a dialog box
with a label
... the example is perceived as a dialog
... we could even drop this in line in html
rich: did you drop tabindex in it?
jcraig: yes
rich: I think it would be cool
jcraig: It thinks it is a real
dialog
... I will make use of jason’s suggestion to remove the image
and use SVG source only.
... now that we published aria 1.1 it is valid
rich: yes
jcraig: most of the authoring
tools don’t provide a good way to save this as a source and
re-edit it
... if an author would somehow render an element that is nor
ordinarily rendered the validator should flag an error
... if it is a block element you could render it
... you could render a script element with display:block in
HTML but it is clearly an author error
janina: anything else James
jcraig: no
janina: we need to run a call for
consensus
... I need a URI to do it right
<MichaelC> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/aa30a30f4445/src/indie-ui-events.html
janina: I will put that out later tonight and give us 7 days to comment.
jcraig: I am still a blocker and
have more to do
... … trigger control
<MichaelC> (above URI is for a version edited May 1)
jcraig: If I am unable to get it done this week then we should do the heartbeat without it but I would really like to get this critical piece in.
rich: if James has something critical to get in we should do it.
michael: would friday for publication for review be ok?
rich: are we shooting for Friday for review?
michael: the URI would change
jcraig: what if send out the URL and then some has changes?
michael: I like to see a diff
jcraig: I am not sure I can provide a URL
janina: I think we are overworrying this over minor edits
jcraig: what if we say this is
the last substantial change?
... I always put minor changes out on the list
janina: we will run the CFC as soon as I get the email from James
janina: this is a draft for us to
review
... it would be helpful for us to share our specific
concerns
<janina_> http://yrlesru.github.io/SPA/
janina: I found this to indicate how to work privacy into our specs.
jcraig: it is only 6 pages and I
will read and report back
... the answer is yes to the first one
jason: if any of these are true then we have an issue
<jcraig> Create a clear understanding of the description of the technical functioning of the SUR,
<jcraig> Identify the data flow between internal components (interactors) of the SUR and external components (interactors),
jcraig: yes
<jcraig> Classify the data identified in Step 2 to understand the data processed (I.E., the Privacy Data Lifecycle defined by IAPP knowledge base) and whether the SUR features can identify, link to, or through observation otherwise determine the person associated with the personal information,
<jcraig> Identify applicable privacy principles and associated privacy safeguarding requirements, such as those from [2] that apply to the primary use cases for the SUR,
<jcraig> Outline the threats created by analyzing the data flows from Step 2, along with the data classification from Step 3 and the applicable privacy requirements from Step 4,
<jcraig> Identify appropriate privacy control mechanisms that can be introduced to safeguard data protection, and
<jcraig> Consider approaches, beyond the privacy controls in Step 6, that will enhance privacy, such as limits on collection, limits for retention, rules for secure transfer, rules for limiting identification or obfuscation, for those deploying the specification or standard.
<jasonjgw> Rich: users can opt in, but if the user wasn't able to use the site unless they declared whether a screen reader was used, this could raise concerns.
<jasonjgw> Rich suggests a note in the spec to discourage collection of personal information.
michael: we should not out an author must without testing. We could put up a plan to test things
<jasonjgw> James and Michael discuss the possibility of adding author requirements in this area. This raises the question of how authoring requirements can be tested when the testable statements in the spec are verified.
<Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to mention privacy group SPA mentions FPWD as ideal start time
jcraig: I am skimming this
privacy assessemnt draft and another piece that is itneresting
to us
... The application of the SPA process should not wait until
the final milestones but instead should be applied from the
first milestone, when a Recommendation is being drafted with
its first working draft. The various activities that apply to
each milestone include:
michael: they will say that it is great that you want to do this.
jcraig: they will assign some privacy champs from that group
michael: I don’t know that they would do that. they may require us to assign a privacy champ for the group
jcraig: Katie has been one of they privacy champions.
michael: at very call we might ask if there are any privacy considreations?
s/considereations/considerations/
michael: left to their own devices a working group might run ramshod over a privacy issue
janina: we will find out
jcraig: we should have a
accessibility considerations paper
... here is an accessibilty consideration for your spec.
michael: the best way to help the group would be to do an SVG flow chart.
janina: we are at the hour foks
<jcraig> jasonjgw, https://github.com/w3c/aria
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/yest/yes/ Succeeded: s/gorup/group/ FAILED: s/considereations/considerations/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfeger Found Scribe: Rich Default Present: janina_, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, kurosawa, Michael_Cooper, Jason_White, James_Craig Present: janina_ Rich_Schwerdtfeger kurosawa Michael_Cooper Jason_White James_Craig Regrets: Andrew_Larking Andy_Heath Found Date: 14 May 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-indie-ui-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
