Meeting minutes
agenga?
Reminder, W3C Events Team survey due 20 August 2021
Lionel_Wolberger: reminder for W3C events team agenda? Any other topics?
Lionel_Wolberger: no other topics
Check in with 3 TPAC meeting owners that they are on track with their agenda
Lionel_Wolberger: EPUB, silver, low vision - joint meeting status?
janina: APA chairs reviewed the list of meetings, with have too many, will try to consolidate at APA chairs meeting
janina: very important that we have clear, concise agenda since will be sharing time with other groups; need to be well prepared
Janina: suggest waiting to assign personalization owners for specific meetings;
Matthew_Atkinson: Both Lisa and I are involved in this epub/silver/low vision meeting
LisaSeemanKest: overview and coga are ones I was involved with
janina: expect coga meeting will remain - Lisa and Rain will have most control, personalization is part to address coga concerns/issues, etc
LisaSeemanKest: coga group is confused about what this group does
LisaSeemanKest: want to work together to get the user needs
janina: think it is okay to repeat the overview from the overview meeting with Coga; but won't have time to go into content module 2&3 in overview but important for coga
<Lionel_Wolberger> https://
Lionel_Wolberger: internationalization?
<Lionel_Wolberger> In the above minutes you can see the owners and outlines of the agenda(s)
janina: I am responsible for working on a meeting time with internationalization; Asks Lisa if she is only person necessary to discuss AAC? Would like to have this call before TPAC
LisaSeemanKest: Would be good to have Steve Lee.
LisaSeemanKest: comments that we could use more of steve's expertise in this group :-)
janina: seems that i18n believes a meeting with us is a good idea (based on comments within the issue); I will start with this meeting time as the proposed time for a meeting.
janina: will be in touch with Steve and Rain and i18n to schedule
janina: there is actually a wiki that helps with various holidays; Lionel and Lisa will be out on Sept 7&8
Get status from our APA chairs regarding our 3 TPAC meetings
Lionel_Wolberger: covered via previous agenda item
zakim. close this item
Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items (see git for Matt's comments)
<Lionel_Wolberger> https://
Lionel_Wolberger: provides git link to actions
Lionel_Wolberger: only 5 items showing; #144 will be covered by i18n meeting
Lionel_Wolberger: #128 will be kept open - personalization semantic demo from Mozilla/firefox
CharlesL: I have reached out to author a few times; he has responded that will provide demo but nothing happens
janina: perhaps not pester him too much until our 2nd CR (once we ask WHATWG for reserved prefix)
<CharlesL> +1 agreed with Roy & Janina
roy: agree with Janina; this issue is not a blocker for document to go to CR; This is an implementation and we will need eventually for PR
janina: cr - candidate recommendation is "world's" notice that we are getting close to being a specification and last chance for comments; CR's last for 60 days. At end of CR transistion to PR (proposed recommendation) and have to show implementation of normative requirements. Must have 2 implementations of each normative requirements. Need that before going to director; then go to Advisory Committee for vote. If it passes AC then it goes
to TR (technical recommendation) 1.0; Might rev. in the future
Lionel_Wolberger: #183 https://
Matthew_Atkinson: We discussed this last week; This issue is asking if there is any publically available research or established research from which the list of attributes was pulled? Understand that this comes from experience of COGA; But, if there is anything would like to see that referenced.
Matthew_Atkinson: doesn't see this as a blocker
LisaSeemanKest: there really isn't any established papers - we did look. I believe User1st collected some data for personalization group; They sent some requests for items but we didn't incorporate them.
JF: I understand the question but concerned that it is linked to the spec. via the issues; This is not common request and not sure where we would include any references.
Matthew_Atkinson: last week we suggested referring to Content Usable; I'm okay with closing the issue.
Janina: agree, site content usable, that is the best we have; One reason to do this is because we are breaking new ground and more support would not hurt. We can include formal citations but they are not required
JF: can't recall any other spec. providing references/citations to research;
Janina: don't believe we need to worry about this issue once we close it
Lionel_Wolberger: ready to close #183 as it is not required for CR; asks Matthew to add a comment and close
Lionel_Wolberger: issue #184 https://
Matthew_Atkinson: believe Charles made a suggestion that we discussed and agreed with
CharlesL: provide new wording within github issue - just need to put into document if everyone agrees
JF: will this be an editorial change to be made? If so, I can take the action
Matthew_Atkinson: this was discussed on the call on May 24 but did not discuss last week. Suggest we look at the proposal - I believe we agree during the call.
Minutes of call: https://
CharlesL: just added clarification about how escape will disregard any changes made to a dialog; Cancel will abort the operation and if there is no cancel button, escape press must perform the cancel
Matthew_Atkinson: this issue is about items visually present within the interface; are we saying that there must be a cancel button? Or are we just saying that if cancel is there it must be marked as critical?
Matthew_Atkinson: correction: the default role of cancel is critical
Action: JF to update Module 1 based on Issue #184
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Update module 1 based on issue #184 [on John Foliot - due 2021-08-16].
Lionel_Wolberger: clarifies that we are accepting the text proposed at the May 24 call.
Sharon: will close once the changes are made to the document
Lionel_Wolberger: issue #170 https://
sharon: JF had an action referenced in the issue comments
JF: will work on this for next week
Lionel_Wolberger: good progress? Any other blockers to CR
Matthew_Atkinson: I'm still looking into the code examples that are not compliant to the spec; I am still working on this
Lionel_Wolberger: I believe we agreed it is not a blocker since the examples are in a wiki page
Matthew_Atkinson: agreed it is not a blocker but will work to complete before CR
Lionel_Wolberger: anything that could block us outside of this list?
Janina: reviews process to get the CFC started
Matthew_Atkinson: asked a question about post 1.0 work - want to make sure we are not precluding future work in our spec. See post to the list
becky: Matthew's post: https://
sharon: just a reminder that i18n is blocking us;
<LisaSeemanKest> follow on call.
Janina: reviews what CfC request will contain