Independent User Interface Task Force Teleconference -- 29 Apr 2015

<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2015

<janina_> /exit

<jcraig> scribe: jcraig

<jasonjgw> Michael confirmed intent to publish tomorrow.

<scribe> scribe: jason jgw

<scribe> scribe: jasonjgw

Janina notes that there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus on how to progress with the work and whether to continue under this working group.

Janina notes moves toward consolidation of working groups within the WAI domain.

<andy> +q

Janina notes events work developing in WebApps.

Judy notes the option on the survey to seek a charter extension.

To do this, there needs to be strong evidence of moves to bring this discussion to a close.

The results of the previous survey were inconclusive.

Judy notes that the end of the charter is tomorrow, and there doesn't seem to have been enough evidence of efforts to resolve IndieUI path to seek an extension at this point.

<janina> Glad you're here, Katie!

Judy notes that if Events move to WebApps but User Context were to remain in IndieUI, the remaining IndieUI User Context work would not likely be sufficient to justify maintaining this group -- besides which we need the staff resources for another group for which there is pressure to split.. Judy urges resolution of the discussion regarding future of the work.

Andy decides to listen for a while in light of Judy's comments.

Janina raises the question whether anyone would object to a move of the Events work to WebApps.

James thinks this should have been considered when Web Events dissolved - Events should have been taken to WebApps.

Janina notes that there appears to be growing interest in continuing the work.

Janina notes the interest from the editing task force in taking up some of the work, and acknowledges that this is encouraging.

<Judy> s/this would create difficulties with staff resourcs/the remaining IndieUI User Context work would not likely be sufficient to justify maintaining this group -- besides which we need the staff resources for another group for which there is pressure to split./

Andy is concerned about the future of User Context, given that the Events work can reasonably be taken up elsewhere. This group is uniquely placed to do the User Context work. Related efforts are underway, but there is no broad consensus between such groups.

Andy notes the related efforts engaged in user needs work.

<Ryladog> +1 to Andy's comment

He emphasizes the importance of focusing the User Context work in one place, and that this group is a good place for it.

Janina notes the broad agreement that User Context shouldn't be dropped; some people would proceed more quickly with a more extensive specification; others want to proceed more carefully; but how and where the work should be carried forward is the remaining question.

<andy> GVH’s GPII, ISO SC36 Individualisation (driven bt Jutta), IMS (I forgot to mention), ISO SC35 which is revising and extending the SWG-A User Needs Summary

Some PF participants who had previously raised patent concerns are now less concerned; this work could be taken up in PF and the existing membership of that group wouldn't have to add this to their workload. Janina notes the strong relationship with CSS and there's a question whether there's enough left over (from what CSS might take up) related to accessibility to motivate an accessibility-related effo

rt.

Janina indicates another option is to establish a community group to carry the work forward.

<andy> +1 for michael’s comment

James summarizes dialogue in IRC.

<jcraig> scribe: jcraig

* sidetracked related to separate WAI charter discussion

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say CG would need driving; CSS wouldn´t be a fit for all of User Context and to say a technology wouldn´t fit into a guidelines group, even an

jw: suggests User Context could be joint effort between CSS and a WAI group

mc: concerned about moving work to a CG, would be no guarantee to drive the work forward
... re: CSS, I think we expect the totality of User Context will not fit into CSS (at least not completely)

but good to work with CSS WG for the items that make sense their

even a possible expanded WAI Guidelines group may not be the right place for it

seems that it's somewhat related to "applications" so tangientially related to ARIA work

ks: i think the UC work should be under a WG, perhaps joint TF under two WGs

ah: +1 to KS about WG under PF

but I don't agree that ARIA? and User Context are on the same level?

it's more experimental

so we should not expect it to develop as a solid set of conformant User Agent specifications as other specs do

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say that´s why a TF of an existing group works best

mc: that reinforces my opinion that it should be put into PF. it's been awkward that IndieUI WG didn't meet it's deadlines. so difficult to meet new WG reqs for W3C groups

jb: I'm hearing ideas of where it could go. no objections.
... trying to determine whether we have a resolution.

<MichaelC> jc: a reason to request extension is that we made a very recent decision to pull back scope

<MichaelC> leaving just the stuff that is more solidified

<MichaelC> which can be a working proof of concept

<MichaelC> this includes an event to dismiss a modal dialog

<MichaelC> and media play / pause

<MichaelC> these are things that are of clear use to more than a11y users

<MichaelC> would like to mature to demo-able stage, say by TPAC

<MichaelC> then see where it goes

<MichaelC> if this group closes, does that end likelihood of getting a couple real implementations?

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say that´s Events, can we push that in WebApps?

mc: jc described ideas for Events... WebApps has not formally commited to taking up the dismiss or media events, but they have generally agreed these events are in their... purview?
... more likely to go to WebApps and convince them to take this on

<Judy> [JB has not heard at any point of a WG only for proof of concept work and expects that would be very heavily pushed back on]

that seem like a more likely outcome that extending a charter for this group

jc: agrees to drop the short extension as an option

ks: concerned I would not be able to join PF

if this group dissolveds

mc: I hope we can resolve that issue

jb: I hope we can too. but not something we can use to hold up a group charter decision

ah: same concern for my own involvement

general discussion of Invited Expert status

<Judy> JB had also commented above that exploration or development of proof-of-concept work would not IMO be viewed as sufficient justification for a charter extension]

js: proposed resolution: do we all agree that User Context module going to PF? Except to the CSS parts?

<Judy> JB had also clarified above that the Invited Expert route can be an option for APA WG as it is for any W3C WG

jc: proposed resolution: do we all agree that the portions of User Context module that dfo not fit into CSS will go to another WAI group, potemntially APA or a spin-off from that APA/PD effort

proposed resolution: do we all agree that the portions of User Context module that do not fit into CSS will go to another WAI group, either APA or a split-off from that APA/PF effort

ah: UC should not split its content

mc: this is most similar to #3 but with notes

jc: #3 did not clearly convey some work is sent to CSS, and that would would be referenced in the UC document APA would maintain

proposed resolution: Do we all agree that the portions of User Context module that are not adopted into CSS will go to another WAI group, either APA or a split-off from that APA/PF effort.

<MichaelC> +1

<joanie> +1

<andy> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<janina> +1

RESOLUTION: The portions of User Context module that are not adopted into CSS will go to another WAI group, either APA or a split-off from that APA/PF effort.

<MichaelC> proposed resolution: Request the WebApps WG take up Events and encourage participants to work to advance that.

<MichaelC> proposed resolution: Request the WebApps WG take up Events and encourage participants from IndieUI and APA to work to advance that.

<MichaelC> +1

<andy> +1

<joanie> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<MichaelC> (janina +1 by proxy)

RESOLUTION: Request the WebApps WG take up Events and encourage participants from IndieUI and APA to work to advance that.

(+1)

<MichaelC> proposed resolution: Close the IndieUI WG

<MichaelC> +1

<joanie> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<MichaelC> (janina +1 by proxy)

RESOLUTION: Close the IndieUI WG.

<Judy> Judy gives a massive thanks to the group for their work, and congratulations on tomorrow's publications.

- DRAFT -

Independent User Interface Task Force Teleconference

29 Apr 2015

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output