Editor's note (wiki page) on action-destination-purpose (following Matthew's edit) and name of the wiki page
sharon: A bit confused which is the note and which the wiki?
jf: Also have editorial actions including clarifying that
<Matthew_Atkinson> The note is on-list and the wiki page is https://
jf: Waiting on the finalization of our wiki before creating the Ed Note in our spec
<Matthew_Atkinson> Draft Editor's Note: https://
jf: Was blocked on name of doc
jf: need a name to get a pointer!
sharon: Understand we need to agree a name to proceed?
<JF> Propose: Action-Destination-Purpose-Deliberations
becky: Yes, my suggestion on name was to clearly capture why we made this doc for future reference.
becky: We need to capture why we made the decisions we made, so that looking in archives in the future will pull us into this page
jf: Good point
<LisaSeemanKest> maybe: approach review
jf: Pasted suggested title
<JF> ask for feedback in Editor's Draft - points to wiki page with the questions/deliberations
Matthew_Atkinson: Noted welcome for Mike agendum ...
<JF> proposal, proposition
Matthew_Atkinson: but on point, Lisa suggest approach/review ... think that's nice
<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel comments, "approach review" can misread as 'approaching review.' So I would like the longer, "Review of the approaches"
Matthew_Atkinson: once we get feedback, we stay or go with a change
LisaSeemanKest: trying to not bind us into a particular approach
<Lionel_Wolberger> "a review of the approaches"
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to a review of the approaches
<JF> -1 to passive voice
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to putting it across as a review of the approaches (I really like "approach review" but "review of approaches" is good too).
<Matthew_Atkinson> How about "Action, Destination and Purpose: Approach Review"?
sharon: Janina, where you suggesting action, destination, approaches in the title?
sharon: A mouthful, but may be important in the future for forensic discovery
jf: Prefer "review of approaches"+1 to jf
<Lionel_Wolberger> Review of approaches regarding action, destination and purpose
<CharlesL> Works for me :)
Lionel_Wolberger: also like "review of approaches"
<JF> Action, Destination, and Purpose: Review of Approaches"
Lionel_Wolberger: Lisa, when you voice it, I get it;; but not necessarily when I read it
<LisaSeemanKest> happy with iether
Lionel_Wolberger: it's an intonation thing
sharon: any objection?
<Lionel_Wolberger> Review of approaches regarding Action, Destination and Purpose
<JF> "Review of approaches for Action, Destination and Purpose"
<JF> "Review of approaches for Action, Destination, and Purpose"
sharon: should we go with "for"?
<mike_beganyi> +1 to "for"
<becky> +1 +1
<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 for "for" but the extra comma seems odd to me
Resolution: Document name will be "Review of approaches for Action, Destination, and Purpose"
sharon: Welcome again to Mike
(general introductions all 'round)
(Note that Lionel_Wolberger and I will be sharing notes on how to publicise the group's work.)
janina: becky: (explain that TPAC is W3C's main meet-up in the year to allow the working groups to talk directly and collaborate; previously in-person, more recently virtual. We need to work out which groups we want to talk with.)
janina: Suggest HTML—and APA has similar needs so we should coordinate an APA-WHATWG meeting.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we've resolved the i18n discussions
JF: i18n too?
janina: If not before TPAC then yes. We have other groups who may need to talk to i18n also.
becky: (Notes we can't go to CR with i18n isuses.)
sharon: How do we coordinate?
janina: We request the who and the why (which WGs our TFs need to talk to and the agendas) and then collate them and send as appropriate to the other WG's chairs. Almost always the meetings are accepted.
JF: What is the timetable like now?
Janina: the event is over several weeks; inter-WG talks are one/two specific weeks.
JF: Should we make a general (breakout session) presentation?
<becky> APA TPAC planning page: https://
LisaSeemanKest: We should meet with COGA. A lot of their active members don't know a lot about this group.
janina: +1; need to work on agenda
LisaSeemanKest: Module 2 prioritization, ...
LisaSeemanKest: As mike_beganyi raised low-vision, the Low Vision TF is active again.
LisaSeemanKest: The Low Vision TF may be interested in our work and should be invited to review.
janina: Even before TPAC we should add Low Vision to a meeting with COGA to work on prioritization for Module 2. Also reference the presentation Gottfried's student made on Media Queries 5.
Roy: (going to check if the presentation can be shared yet)
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about ACT And AG WGs?
Matthew_Atkinson: (I was going to ask if we can review that presentation; glad to hear it's close.)
JF: How about ACT and AG WG—getting testable statements created around the work we're doing?
janina: If we go to TR with Module 1 before Silver goes to TR we have the option of building this into WCAG 3. So yes; maybe a joint session with Pronunciation and RQTF [other APA TFs].
JF: We could present a general breakout session as well as specific presentations for particularl WGs.
JF: The more general one is about sharing information; the specific ones are about action items.
becky: +1 but should discuss in the APA call.
sharon: Next steps on planning for TPAC? At what point do we need to have agendas?
janina: Once decided we should add to the TPAC planning Wiki page.
becky: (Link above; been updating as we discuss.)
Lionel_Wolberger: ACT—they seem to be focused on testing statements that have been agreed already (rather than adding new things)?
<becky> ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing
<becky> AG = Silver / WCAG 3.0 working group
JF: It's about taking what we have specifed here, which is broad, and breaking down into specific testable statements; should help integrate our spec into accessibility guidelines.
LisaSeemanKest: The work we're doing is aligned with the goals of Silver, and may help with adopting general principles such as those discussed in COGA's Content Usable document. We should talk to Silver and explain what our goals are; should be easy for us to provide the testable statements due to our focus on semantics.
<JF> +1 Janina
LisaSeemanKest: We need to focus on outcomes we want for the user in order to work with Silver.
janina: +1 we need to focus on the outcomes for user; can agree the ACT part should follow, but most important is focusing on user outcomes.
LisaSeemanKest: So focus on user outcomes, and then when they're defined we can bring in ACT.
<becky> FAST survey
becky: We need input on the FAST survey from all APA members.
becky: that's "Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAST)"
(Also your current scribe, i.e. me, has been parsing that list with the Oxford comma and does appreciate how it conveys the three things are siblings.)