See also: IRC log
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Mar2017
<manu> scribe: manu
Ian: This is the agenda for the
IG meeting. I've been arranging calls to go over presentations
from this task force for this meeting.
... Some of the meetings are happening early next week, some of
them have not closed some of the gaps yet. They are still under
discussion.
... We are trying to ensure we have good presentations/plans.
Let's get a shared expectations for planning part of
presentations.
... Jeff, could you share thoughts on presentations?
Jeff: Let's frame how the Vision
2017 Task Force fits into overall W3C work in payments and
ecommerce.
... From that point of view, W3C's work in payments and
ecommerce is both exciting and long overdue.
... We didn't focus on standards for commercial part of the Web
for many years, that was to the detriment of the Web, but we
started to fix that about 3 years ago, had a workshop, created
the WPIG.
... There was low-hanging fruit, which was to streamline the
checkout process. If we could take that subproject of the
broader set of things we were thinking of, and build a WG
around that to develop some standards there, it could have a
tremendous amount of impact, I've been pleased with the
progress of the WPWG.
... However, that's just one small aspect of the overall
picture.
... We need some sort of steering committee to figure out what
the next things are - boil it down into proposed actions as to
what needs to be done. New efforts to address those real
problems that exist on the Web. That's why we have the
WPIG.
... The Vision 2017 Task Force is attempting to identify the
topic areas. I've been tracking the progress of the TF, and
I've been seeing some very good progress. We want to take these
four proposals and get them to the level that they get out of
concept space to a tangible work item.
... The Task Force is operating as a subset of the IG, which is
meeting in a few weeks.
... What we're going to want to do is have the IG select one or
more. We are looking for things that are impactful on the Web.
We have a community around the work. We have something
sufficiently tangible, we can do something. Incubation.
Prototyping. etc.
... What we want to get to in the IG meeting, we want to
identify community, sufficient incubation to launch. Or, it's
important but we lack critical components of a community. Or,
we have a community, but it's not well incubated.
... We did this originally for the WPWG proposal, we did this
with Verifiable Claims, and we want to continue.
Ian: You touched on some things -
fleshing out ideas of proposal and more tangible part of how
we're going to get work done, what elements require community
building, looking around at existing work, haven't discussed
those or heard from individual proponents on how they'd like to
broach that subject.
... it would be good to have more of that at the IG meeting.
Get people to say "yes, I'm interested and I want to be a part
of the plan". I'd like us to chat about that today.
Jeff: Yes, idea of a workshop is a good idea as well - if presenters have it build into their presentation, then great, we should focus on some of those things.
<Ian> scribenick: Ian
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest updated presentation as a talking point?
Manu: +1 to jeff's background. We
were asked to redo the digital wallets presentation...we've put
something new together
... I think it contains a number of points that were just
mentioned.
... would it be useful to review here?
<dezell> +1
<manu> Web-based Digital Wallets updated presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PrzATBb2VfVgrnKRMZ7BR5I-zA1s19GXSresiCS98Lc/edit
(this is for integration into the digital offers part of the IG agenda)
[Manu reviews slide deck]
Manu: What's missing that I heard Jeff/Ian speak about is the operational side - what's the plan?
<manu> Ian: Those are not mutually exclusive, you have information about IFSF and Conexxus, what is the connection that you imagine happening between W3C and these organizations. The plan would be to bring these orgs together in Digital Offers - get representatives to get involved over next month. To get them interested and to stay, there needs to be some sort of tangible statement about first focus you'd like to see. You could draw from slide 11.
<manu> Ian: If they saw the concrete thing they'd be working on, or is it brainstorming? Initial thoughts, run them by IG?
<manu> Ian: I like slide 11 - missing capabilities - the concern, where it would need to be handled is how it integrates with other parts of digital offers discussion.
<manu> Ian: I don't think we've done the same homework for other use cases - we could use it as an example to show digital offers CG the sort of things we want to suggest. What capabilities need to be developed for the web?
<manu> Ian: If we spent more time on other use cases, we could write them all down, and see common needs across other use cases. If they are priority use cases, that would be great, but that seems ambitious to me. It might be helpful to go into deep technical discussion, but give more explanation of what each one names.
<manu> Ian: I don't get offer.get() Merchant query for Digital offers - it's not saying there's - the question is - is there any other web technology that could be used to build this? Maybe this is too low level of a discussion.
Manu: the plan is to speak with David and Linda next week (hopefully)
<manu> dezell: Linda is out of the office today. I think it's important and she'll be delighted.
<manu> dezell: In listening to what Jeff is suggesting, it sounded like there is a finer point on the specifics of what we should do - looking at slide 11 on Digital Wallet slide deck... what we want is to look at that, say "yes, we think that's right", and put structure on how to carry that forward.
<manu> jeff: +1 to what Ian said - agree with David.
<manu> jeff: Seeing the diversity of stuff in Manu's presentation - user requirements, to flows, to APIs. It might be worthwhile to see if WPWG folks could advance their schedules and show up one day early and participate in IG meeting. If we can get diversity of participants that matches diversity of slides, that would be helpful.
<manu> dezell: AdrianHB won't be at the IG meeting, but NickTR should be there.
<manu> Ian: There are only a small number of people that are very active in WPWG that will be there.
<manu> Ian: I'll try to get more folks to come.
<manu> Ian: The way I view the presentation - it's a great thing to say we have this for every use case we discuss. There is a story, picture of the flow, here's what we think is missing. Pick the ones we wanted.
<manu> Ian: It's helpful to see this, but it does suggest that we're going to have varying degrees of specificity across the presentation.
<manu> Ian: Slide 11 feels like "next conversation"... I would not expect lots of people to have slide 11.
<manu> Ian: Showing this to people as something to work toward in next round will be helpful.
<manu> Ian: I wanted to ask Ted a question...
https://www.w3.org/2017/Talks/tg-autopay/
https://www.w3.org/2017/Talks/tg-autopay/?full#16
<manu> Ian: There is a bit in auto that lends itself to auto payments... there is a next steps here...
<manu> Ian: maybe we could have more specificity
<manu> Ian: Should the Task Force be a CG, non-members jump in easily? Create use cases for vehicle payment situations? Existing Use Cases document that you drew from for this?
<manu> Ian: How do you get the next steps to happen in practice, starting information...
<manu> Ian: Maybe you could flesh out that part of the presentation?
<manu> Ian: David, I know you'll be traveling - will you be able to include some of this for planning?
<manu> dezell: My deck will be a list of suggestions - I feel relatively confident about that.
<manu> Ian: We would like to have presentations available to people a bit in advance.
IJ: Please have decks available by 20 March
to the IG
Manu: I have an agenda question
<manu> ian: I'm working with JY and David on regulatory
<manu> ian: We have materials to share - that one will have a different feel, not a use case thing as much as communications and CG development. Automotive, security, digital receipts.... then digital offers will be 2 hours, larger set of use cases and demo.
<manu> Ian: GSMA presentation is being discussed... they have an API, I've urged them to talk about their API in terms that relate to W3C's work. I've sent them a draft outline on how that might work. MWC is under way, so they're occupied.
<manu> Ian: GSMA will be about raising awareness and collaborate with Payment Apps.
<manu> Ian: We may talk about rechartering, in preparation for that, I've put out the beginnings of a draft charter. That is just a discussion item.
<manu> Ian: I didn't have anything else for today - wanted to hear specifics for presentations.
Manu: Demo on slide 5
... we can show this today (with polyfills) on chrome
... I think these capabilities are common to many use cases
<manu> Ian: Add a slide - some other capabilities from other use cases.
<manu> Ian: We don't need to focus on capabilities that people aren't pushing.
<manu> Ian: It may be interesting to see what capabilities are needed in the flow, bring back flow diagram and label it w/ capabilities.
<manu> Ian: Slide 11 - fast provisioning of digital wallets.
IJ: Fast provisioning is a desirable characteristic of the system but not a missing capability...could that be adjsuted?
Manu: I think there are some capabilities underneath it...
IJ: what does "fast" mean?
Manu: It could be a merchant recommendation...flow needs to be "offer, accept, etc."
<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask about connecting bullets and flow
<manu> Ian: I think you should identify the specific capabilities, elaborate on the item... focus on what's missing. You have to go from "fast provisioning" - to specific requirements.
<manu> Ian: Encoding of digital offer - we need high level on security, performance, user experience to help ensure success of this use case, we need to point out key system considerations.
<manu> Ian: Some of them seem to be very specific - like event handlers for payment request - we need event handlers for offers. That's very specific to this use case. There is other stuff that's less specific to this use case.
<manu> Ian: Don't know what fast provisioning is about yet, or this is a user experience topic, but it's just event handlers and UI in the end.
<manu> Ian: Like NFC API being critical - that may be missing capabilities.
Manu: Sounds like we should be more specific...and where we can't, we may need more slide to be specific
<manu> Ian: It feels to me like what you want to do is express characteristics of the system
<manu> Ian: Where you do have specificity, it may be that a simple bullet explains it.
IJ: What does context-sensitive display mean?
Manu: You need consistency of
loyalty card rendered consistently.
... use HTML5 but the question is how more specifically to you
package it.
... How do you generate a package for a web component and how
can someone drop it in there without an iframe?
IJ: What about Web Components?
Manu: The group needs to figure out what it thinks is the right practice
<manu> Ian: I'd express that at the requirements layer - brands care about what they look like... open question is - do we need to do anything different than PNG/SVG? More structured data? Feels more like best practice camp, go back to slide 5 - may introduce requirements. When you come back to context sensitive display - go back to slide 5, they care that they look like that - we have a variety of ways to render things on the Web.
<manu> Ian: Why is this special? It is widely accepted that people will care about proper rendering of their brand.
<manu> Ian: A place where it's not addressed is - in PaymentRequest - native chrome showing payment apps that can be used - that is not done through the Web, that's where we want to have the conversation.
<manu> Ian: We're having the discussion in PaymentApps land - for non-web-based payment apps, we don't have anything to say, for web-based payment apps, I'd like to hear about what you think is missing. It's a requirement to display these brands accurately across devices.
Manu: I may split some items out to move to appendix
<manu> Manu: We'll revise the deck based on this feedback.
IJ: Do we need another phone call?
dezell: I am unavailable all Fridays until the FTF
<manu> Ian: I propose that we continue, but not have calls - work by email to help people build their presentations.
<manu> Ian: We can collaborate via email, but we can schedule time to chat if folks like.
RESOLUTION: Next meeting will be at FTF unless someone contacts Ian to schedule more phone time