Meeting minutes
TPAC planning updates, https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021
<janina> lionel: Notes request to coord with COGA Facilitators; awaiting Rain's response
<janina> janina: Explains question of do we want all normative plus RQTF's AUR docs in one session?
<janina> lionel: Would want our issue resolved
<janina> janina: Suggests some ways to decide
<janina> lionel: Don't think we need more than enough to understand why we do symbols--suggest 10 minutes
<janina> lionel: Think we need 20 minutes for discussion
<janina> jf: Think minimum of 30; could be 45
<janina> jf: Suggests audience for Personalization is different from audience for Pronunciation
<janina> janina: Suggests we can consider in coord
<janina> CharlesL: Agrees with JF that 25 min too little
<janina> CharlesL: Expect we'll need to show examples and leave room for debate
<JF> +1 to charles - if we only use 40 minutes, no harm, no foul
<Lionel_Wolberger> Janina: The ePub meeting will focus on registries.
<Lionel_Wolberger> ... do we want to add Personalization to the agenda?
<janina> janina: Asks whether we need additional agendum with Epub; or simply suggest Breakout intro is important and should be attended
<janina> jf: Recalls additional eye fatigue requiring more reliance on SR AT as the day progresses
<janina> CharlesL: Believe there is lv benefit; specifically reducing on screen info, i.e. simplification
<Lionel_Wolberger_> Charles: Low vision would benefit from simplification
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: Do we need to verbalize for epub a rationale?
<janina> CharlesL: I think not; the general case is there
<Lionel_Wolberger_> CharlesL: Epub is already interested in Personalization, Charles represents epub in this ctee
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: +1 to Chhls example
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: also we've the beginning of tailored info presentation; so possibilities for future transformations
<CharlesL> +1 for other new opportunities with LV attending.
<janina> jf: We're proposing new techniques/tech for use in known or yet to be specified problems
<janina> jf: What problems can we solve with these techniques?
<janina> jf: COGA? We know. Other users? We just said LV. So, can we restate for wider appeal
<janina> janina: proposes draft invite email to list for additional reasons before we send along to Silver, Epub, and LV
<janina> [agreement]
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: asks where to post presentation?
Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items
<janina> lionel: github 144 still open -- no response yet
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: Asks john about issue 170
<janina> jf: Sent pr and note Sharon found some edits I missed?
<janina> sharon: Shoulwe review before merge?
<janina> sharon: can merge if we agree?
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: OK
Action: janina to provide the task force the messaging template for shawn's review
<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Provide the task force the messaging template for shawn's review [on Janina Sajka - due 2021-08-30].
Labelling the unlabelled issues in git
<sharon> https://
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: started doing but realized we should look as a group
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: see 4 unlabeled
<janina> github vs travis -- one we can leave
<janina> roy: that comes from W3C management--we can ignore
<janina> CharlesL: suggests something like 'admin'
<janina> janina: suggests a label that will be used again
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: agree about reusability
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: don't like 'misc' because it doesn't disclose anything
<janina> CharlesL: like 'process' because there will be others for sure
<janina> Lionel_Wolberger_: 'needs resolution'?
<janina> Matthew_Atkinson: notes 'implementation'
<Matthew_Atkinson> All the labels and their intended uses: https://
<janina> roy: explains what this issue is
<CharlesL> I would recoomend then "admin" things that Roy / Chairs must deal with
<janina> roy: explains it's not anything we can do, not even me or michael; it's for plh
<janina> roy: proposing w3c-tool
<janina> [agreement]