WAI UA -- 26 Mar 2015

<Jan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015JanMar/att-0056/00-part

charter comment update and plan for completing UAAG 2.0

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Main_Page#Implementation

<Jan> JB: Is there a formal way that the mobile group reports back

<Jan> JS: No, but Kim does a report every couple of months

<Jan> JB: Asks about how agenda works in this group

<Jan> JR: Added with Agenda: but not tracked automatically

<Jan> JB: Have heard recently about people interested in joining

<Jan> Scribe: Kim

<Jan> JB: Two member orgs

<Jan> JB: Actually 4 member orgs

Judy: I think one way to do this just because of what's in progress right now is Jeanne you and I reaching out to them

<Jan> JB: We had put out charters as a package

Judy: Better turnout of viewers than we had before.

<Jan> JB: Comments and support but also objections

<Jan> JB: INcluding to this group continuing.... based on assumption of no credible progress

Judy: Objections to this group continuing based on no credible progress and questioning importance of the work and also some people noting that there was a real urgent need for work with UAAG in WCAG

<Jan> JB: No browser participation or sceptism re: browser implementation

Judy: Look at the actual status, in some cases that is better than what we've been communicating especially in long period of comments
... also given that the browsers aren't necessarily involved in every group that they have interest in, hard for them to be involved in every group, has been some history of some dialogue. In addition what you are working on also is relevant for implementation to the vertical stack
... the vertical stack, and other words in this case the plug-ins and extensions, not necessarily the assistive technology, but at least the plug-ins and extensions
... also a preliminary overview of implementations – you may actually have a fair amount of feature coverage but we don't know how much
... one other relevant piece of information is you are close to closing the comments out
... so you might be closer to CR, next few months. If you were to close as a note how relevant would that be – would the work be significantly weakened or better
... those are some of the things that have come up through this review process. We actually want to figure out pretty quickly is the group still interested in continuing. What kind of plans do you think a realistic, what kind of steps in pursuing the rec track
... one of the reasons I'm visiting today is because we need to determine pretty quickly whether the group wants to continue, what your most objective assessment of your own status is, what do you think the priorities might be if you were to focus on getting yourselves expeditiously into candidate recommendation in the next few months
... I left out one other important piece of information. Jeanne and I did a pre-discussion with one of the people who do candidate recommendation. Confirmed that most groups including very large groups are using a very simple set of exit criteria, which is two implementations feature by feature basis, independent and not the more elaborate exit criteria like we were trying to do for atag
... we are hearing from the advisory committee now that speed is the key thing they are looking for and I'm no longer worried you will be up against show me this working in five different types of things or whatever. So if you can get into candidate rec by clearing the remaining comments you should be able to get out of it

Jan: until recently I had concerns, but with those simplified criteria I think we can get out of rec

<Jan> KP: I agree, simplified criteria are key and I think we should continue and we can get done.

Jeanne: one of the key things is the vertical stack – writing our definition

Jan: we have collected implementations

Jeanne: some of those documents are old, it would take some work

Judy: you and Jan have about two thirds of the tests written, and because of the atag test harness you have two thirds of that, maybe a quarter of the data you need for the risk assessment, maybe a few new members and the definition of user agent but not integrated into the vertical stack yet – you need some time to do that.
... If you had a year, would that give enough time to put together stuff.
... the key thing is a plan to do that – close of the comments, finish the test suite here are the tasks that are needed, here is the timeframe
... here are the parallel paths that could be done in these of the time frames we think we could do them in if we applied our work here among the tasks and assigned new people coming in

Jan: I agree – that's a great sounding plan. As well getting that implementation table done – and simple as here the SCs and here are the two or three tools that we think meet each one is a way to push back on people who say UAAG is just pie-in-the-sky.

Judy: you need that to, run in parallel with the other things
... Greg looking over minutes so far
... quick summary – lots of charter comments, more engagement on the charter reviews than ever before including objections, among those close group because of lack of progress. Also potential for implementation through the vertical stack and a more reasonable set of exit criteria, clear requirements that may make it easier to get in and also out of rec track
... reason for my visit today is if you want to continue on rec track rather than note, which would be more impact, my guess is you wouldn't be able get more than a year of charter time. I want to be able to re-present the charter package within the next week. Looking for what could be said about this group and that package.
... there were a few new groups that expressed interest in joining. You may be getting a few new folks

Greg: new people joining is a mixed bag. More help is appreciated but it can also slow things down as they want to revisit.

Judy: we want people to come in and move it forward

<Jan> Start of a plan...

<Jan> Concluding comment processing.

<Jan> Risk assessment for CR

<Jan> Completing Tests

Judy: there's other things you could be doing, such as comments. I don't want to hold that up. I can propose something. Short-term needs concluding commenting, stabilize working draft, risk assessment for CR completing tests. none of these are easy
... let's visit each of these briefly. Is there something we can say on the comment process? Waiting for Microsoft, information from Shawn

Jan: haven't taken them up yet

Judy: process?

Jeanne: usually Jim and I will do a triage of comments sort out the ones that can be done quickly without approval, try to get those out of the way first then propose comments for discussion and ask for proposals. Sometimes need discussion before we can get a proposal.

Judy: Sounds like a very multistep process. In some groups people do a proposal right off.
... 4 topics it would be good to move forward on. Comment status and comment processing.
... Cynthia, Shawn and Silas

Jeanne: Shawn about three

Judy: maybe a dozen total
... if the timeouts had been there and you would have been able to go to the rec draft yet. possible to ignore after timeout.
... if a new working draft that says it's a check before going to CR for all you know you may get more comments – is that the general feeling in the group?

Jan: I don't feel like there are people bursting to give as comments, on the other hand there may be people who might take a deeper look given CR

Judy: on comments I think it's probably hardest figure out what to say because there's some unknowns there.
... test harness

Jeanne: test harness separate issue, negotiate with Kevin
... tests, probably two people days of work left

Jan: probably would be a good idea for the next protocol to put down that basic plan. Jeanne you wrote that for atag. As much as possible bring in the URI's, here's our implementation

Greg: how formal is this document

Jeanne: needs to be a document to point to to show work

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/UAAG_2.0_Completion_Plan

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015JanMar/0055.html

<Greg> UAAG 2.0 Implementation Report http://w3c.github.io/UAAG-Implementations/

<Greg> UAAG 2.0 Implementation Comments - Google Sheets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17yZwJOko7jDwxv8oH5sZtL2V1BEt2fREdDEgsTcEbiY/ (only a few entries Firefox)

- DRAFT -

WAI UA

26 Mar 2015

Attendees

Contents

charter comment update and plan for completing UAAG 2.0

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output