Meeting minutes
RAUR and XAUR any updates.
RAUR and XAUR any updates.
JW: Good work is done here.
What do we need to do here?
JS: All these docs need to pass the Michael test
JS: Both are on for a reading agenda for Michael.
Pronunciation got sent back.
JS: It was lacking context.
It is technically good just needs better context.
JOC: Both docs are updated in main
and ready for review
JS: We did a second wide review with CAPTCHA, it was a long process but useful.
JS: With RAUR and XAUR we just need the group to sign.
JOC: Works for me.
JS: If we have a reason for wide review then we can but I dont think we do have a reason
JW: Me neither, dont recall any specific groups etc that we want comments from.
We could get comments from a range of users
JS: Both docs are useful as they stand.
We can version them in the future, like we suggest with the MAUR.
With CAPTCHA that was a revision of a 2007 doc.
SH: Yes, that was needed.
SH: +1
JOC: I'm meeting Shawn today to talk about messaging.
JS: There will a CFC soon, so this will make a call to publish the snapshot from main.
JOC: Great I'll take that up with Shawn a la messaging etc
JW: No objection
JOC: This is great, happy to hear this.
JW: Anything else?
JS: We will have a big doc from COGA APA, 'Content Usable'.
JOC: Yes, we dont want to steal thunder etc
JW: What is the timeline?
JS: CFC likely next week, we will also co-ord with AGWG.
JW: We will review next week
JS: Good idea
Accessibility of natural language interfaces.
JW: I'll describe where we are at.
We had positive discussion on mailing list
We investigated scope questions etc
Interesting questions raised about multi modal interactions and relationships between UIs
We analysed sensory and cognitive issues
I had time to iterate a new document
I followed the RAUR structure and adapted it to write requirements and issues.
So I have a RESPEC type document on my local machine
JW: I covered different modalities etc and incorporated peoples comments on list.
I also noted issues around scope
JW: I also have colleagues who are interested in this work, I may be able to share relavant work.
jo: Appreciates the start, but want to set some context
jo: We still need overall work context and potential approaches; narrow slices
<scott_h> great work Jason on doing so much work on this during the week
jo: vs the boader approach of any/all conversational; modality independent
jo: framing the i/o aspect is important
jo: even the voice slice will keep us busy
jo: the broader, agnostic approach -- do like Jason's natural language approach
jo: do like the broader framing, but we need to decide what's more achievable for us
<shadi> +1 to JoC
<joconnor> JS: Yes so what is achievable for us.
<joconnor> JS: I'd like to see what Jason has done
<joconnor> We have either option.
<joconnor> Happy to see this progress.
<joconnor> JW: I can add it so we can see the commit history.
<joconnor> JOC: Works for me
<joconnor> JW: I'll take care of that.
<joconnor> It isn't clear to me what a broader approach might be.
<joconnor> I thought we had an understanding in the TF that natural language would be the centre piece.
<joconnor> JW: There is also the issue of the underlying services that these Natural Language Interfaces are built on.
<joconnor> What I did was focus on the NL aspect, and look at whats involved in making cross disability issues accessible, and draw rough boundary.
<joconnor> It's not clear to me how broad, 'broad' is..
<joconnor> 2 points - Michael suggested that we drive toward a way to realise this vision of the semantic web
<joconnor> The Google ecosystem has begun to implement..
<joconnor> How broad or how narrow? The modality matters.
<joconnor> The hands free aspect of these things is a major benefit.
<joconnor> We can slice aspects of this.. Voice/Speech gives you real hands free.
<joconnor> JW: That leads me to the point, like with XAUR - where we make broad descriptions, we will be doing the same however we divide up the domain.
<joconnor> There are research problems here, so we can document which parts contain the challenging research questions.
<joconnor> This could influence research.
<joconnor> JW: We need to be clear where research problems are.
<joconnor> Do we need to make a decision? Or start with Natural Language etc? Or broader requirements of the services?
jo: will be services aspect, whether we go broad or narrow
jo: we don't know what we'll discover
jo: the i/o goes on top of that, whatever the modality
jo: do see natural lang as more modality independent
jo: not saying no to either
<joconnor> JW: Noting previously the lack of guidance from W3C in this area, there is research on speech and also text and multimodal capabilities as well.
<joconnor> I've spoken with colleagues working here, they would want to see something broader than speech only
<joconnor> Non-speech modalities would be guidance they would want to see.
<joconnor> JB: I like what I'm hearing
<joconnor> JS: It sounds like you are thinking of people where the hands free aspect may not be as critical as in mainstream?
<joconnor> JW: Yes, RTC call to an agent but could be text based etc
<joconnor> JS: Same thing, multi modal is a key aspect.
<joconnor> JW: Guidance in this area being covered by the areas my employers are in would be of interest.
<joconnor> JS: Publishing etc would be of interest
<joconnor> JW: And others, I'm not sure what motivated the community group work, from a few years ago.
<joconnor> JW: I'd like to cover speech issues and cross disability issues - and the underlying service etc.
<joconnor> JP: From the sightloss perspective, as long as a pure speech interface is covered I dont mind which approach
<shadi> +1 to John!
<Judy> +1 to John as well!
<joconnor> Natural Language is good, as long as it is there.
<joconnor> JB: Can we confirm that we have concensus?
<joconnor> So we don't have to cycle back etc
<joconnor> JB, are you ok with this Shadi?
<joconnor> SAZ: Fully agree!
<joconnor> I was going to echo what John was saying.
<joconnor> Doing speech in a broader scope, or even the other way around - is fine.
<joconnor> Lets focus on how much this would draw on resources in this group.
<joconnor> SAZ: Expanding scope may just effect other work.
<joconnor> JW: Thanks for confirming - if we take the Natural Language aspect, cover it well, multimodal, services etc - is that sound?
<joconnor> JW: Can I commit something to a branch and Josh will edit etc?
<joconnor> JOC: Yes
<joconnor> JS: Who is going to work on this?
<joconnor> JOC: This is right up my street and I'm happy to work with Jason
<joconnor> JW: I'll push what I've got and Josh can make edits/commits.
Media synchronization any updates.
<joconnor> JW: Steve sent regrets, and he has been doing most of the work here.
<joconnor> Wanted to see if there are comments?
<joconnor> JS: We missed the timeframe - Timed Text is moving to next version.
<joconnor> We have a horizontal review request.
<joconnor> WCAG 3 can put machine testable requirements into the doc.
<joconnor> We should steer to a joint meet with Silver
<joconnor> See that they want to take advantage of..
<joconnor> JW: Thank you, so you are not greatly concerned on our schedule.
<joconnor> JS: Dont want to fall behind too much
<joconnor> IIRC there are some topics that need review
<joconnor> JW: I propose that we discuss next week
<joconnor> Scott and Judy are discussing remote meetings
<joconnor> JS: FYI we are having a show and tell on Media Queries in APA