<Joshue108> Scribenick: Joshue108
<scott_h> janina: wiki page needs work, not responsive to the request
<scott_h> order we had things in is what we had agreed on
<scott_h> summary: killer use cases needed, why its a valuable technology approach
<scribe> Scribenick: scott_h
looking for dramaic - things people get
We've found one of those, but we have it as number two
so shoudl number 1 be our best?
Service animals is the poster case
<Joshue108> SH: I agree, I thought we had this sorted
<jasonjgw> Scott concurs with the point of view developed by Janina.
<Joshue108> SN: I agree.
scott: agree, should be listed in the mintues from about a month ago and coul dget the agreed order form that
steve: agree
<Joshue108> JW: I'm comftable with any order - its an approximation
jason: happy to interchange
janain: agreed the group is happy to interchange,
jason: ACTION: will move them around to match agreed order
janina: josh - can you do this?
josh: would you like me to do
that now?
... changing the order now
jason: so e-mail can be sent now?
janina: yes, will go
<Joshue108> Done.
josh: done
janson: than you
janina: we'd like ot have TPAC for end of October in Vancouver
Has not been called off but likely we will not face ot face
questions to consider:
- do we want to meet?
- do we want ot meet in a cross-group conversaiton?
<sctot_h> judy:to provide background
W3C looking at third possibility: mixed mode
so do we have an agenda, and do you have availability?
Some options being considered: spread it over a longer period of itme
jason: the two working drafts that we have on RTC and XR could form the basis of joint meetings
would be good for a Wednesday session as it doesn't involve just one technology
jason: availability? uncertianty at the moment
<jasonjgw> Scott: accessibility of remote meetings is a topic attracting considerable interest, and could be a discussion topic.
<jasonjgw> Scott notes Jason's presentation at Scott's local accessibility meetup recently, where the remote meetings topic was particularly engaging to the audience.
scott: remote meetings wiki is
getting traciton, would be a good extention of RTC to
discuss
... avaialbiity woudl be great if online as haven't been able
to make it to face-to-face
steve: topics sound good
... virtual is good, but more difficult to get out of other
commitments and just focus on TPAC
... but happy to be involved
josh: XAUR and RAUR woudl be
great opporutnities
... remote meetings as discovery topic would be a great
option
... there is a dynamic about bieng in therom, but undetand may
not be possible
<Judy> FAST
Framework for Accessibility Specificaitons (FAST) topic
<Joshue108> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/
<Judy> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technology
judy: topics: RQTF has no
shortage of topics
... RQTF is different in that we cover a number of differnt
topics,
but its hard to get peopel on board: need to continue recruiting
so not only do we need topic, but need to work on how to bring in particiption
other ideas: VR space, PlutoVR intersted to work with W3C
while most W3C don't want ot experiment, RQTF does like to experience new things
<sctot_h> jason: APA good to prepare meetings ahead of time, but appreciate some topics may need more prep
janina: everything sounds great
we've certianly got topics,
but would not want ot use TPAC for experiments
TPAC time is really about meeting participants we don't see otherwise, need to maximise benefits
so clear understanding of
- who we want ot meet
- why we want ot meet
- outcomes
We coudl ask for RQTF meeting itme, but unlikley
more like agenda items floating up to APA
need ot say on time, focused: time partiuclarly vauable
judy: disagree, can't see why RQTF couldn't request task force time in addiiotn to good APA meeting
wnat to clarify what meant by experimenting: agree with Janina,
more about explorations ahead of meeting on more experimental interfaces
then during the meeting to be showcasing those that might attract form other groups
janina: yes, RQTF can have its own meeting slot but I don't see it being scheudled unless TPAC runs over several weeks
second poitn: yes, fine wiht that as long as other gorup doens't need to be up to pseed
jason: the Note rack mateiral and FAST work is good substance
Will need to consider who to engage, outcomes
judy: one other topic idea
may be beneficial to the gorup to scan the entire space
<Joshue108> +1 to Judy
scanning/supporting different technologies, inviting other people to those
may give a stronger engagement
background of FAST important
FAST can support review and other groups have checklist, so now considered behind
something expected by W3C to ahve efficient checklist to expedite an agile standards process
josh: FAST: one of the things we need to do is fit into current review practices along lines of internationalisaiton group are doing
In terms of TPAC, I agree in broad terms
with even more of a challenge: really need to identify stakeholders, players
and more of achallenge this tme so need ot start process earlier
judy: +1 and janina - your pre-cooridnation as APA chari at last TPAC with QTF topics was essential
<Joshue108> Go Janina!
janina: intersting: we've had dependence on calendar and clock, but virutal meeitng that extends TPAC liely to change things
By 13 May - shoudl answer what topics, whith whom, agenda and what itme
judy: point of TPAC is to grab intersections
janina: TPAC really helps focus
jason: ACTION: for next week, look at RAUR and XAUR and consider dependencies, with whome, issues and outcomes
narrow down collaborators
<Joshue108> +1 to Jason - also some of our XAUR and RAUR work could be leveraged for new WCAG techniques in AGWG.
jason: is the relaitonship between various technolgies and groups documented??
josh: yes in places. One of the challenges is with new things:privacy and accessibility, security and accessibility, what other gorups like community group engagement
janina: some news: should Silver look at XR? Janina says it should
<Joshue108> s/ between documents doucmented/ between various technologies and groups documented?
jason: we'll review remote meetings over the next week and github issues for review next week
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/approxmation/approximation/ Succeeded: s/iteh/in the/ Succeeded: s/gorup/group/ Succeeded: s/quesiotn sto consier/questions to consider/ Succeeded: s/wantot/want to/ Succeeded: s/ot/to/ Succeeded: s/ to proivde backgroun,/to provide background/ Succeeded: s/woudl e/would be/ Succeeded: s/coudl/could/ Succeeded: s/mometn/moment/ Succeeded: s/woudl/would/ Succeeded: s/ot/to/ Succeeded: s/continnue recruting/continue recruiting/ Succeeded: s/ i swith new htings: / is with new things:/ Succeeded: s/ between documents doucmented/ between various technolgies and groups documented?/ FAILED: s/ between documents doucmented/ between various technologies and groups documented?/ Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, SteveNoble, scott_h, Joshue Present: jasonjgw janina SteveNoble scott_h Joshue Joshue108 Found ScribeNick: Joshue108 Found ScribeNick: scott_h Inferring Scribes: Joshue108, scott_h Scribes: Joshue108, scott_h ScribeNicks: Joshue108, scott_h Found Date: 22 Apr 2020 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]