Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Announcements
Prospects for changing our teleconference hour
Matthew_Atkinson: There are potential staff timetabling changes coming up.
Matthew_Atkinson: We have been asked to change our conference hour (this call).
Matthew_Atkinson: Would people be able to make 10AM EST?
Matthew_Atkinson: Swapping Pronunciation over is probably doable.
Matthew_Atkinson: RQTF has people form Australia whcih of course si a concern.
Matthew_Atkinson: Becky wonät be able to make it once a month and the rest of us are probably fine with it.
janina: No PSTers on the call, which would be where most complaints would come from.
anevins: Probably interested in getting on the CSSWG.
janina: Well, that should be able to combine with a station in Melbourne.
Task Force & Deliverables Updates
Matthew_Atkinson: COGA? No one is on call from COGA.
PaulG: Pronunciation! Today we discussed some Github issues and some upcoming discussions with AGWG about language,locales and AT.
PaulG: We are waiting on some cation items from one participant before we tie up our discussions with ARIA-WG.
PaulG: We have these ongoing discussions - that is what we are up to now.
janina: I didn't even discuss it in Tuesday's call. Matthew discovered something here. There are somilar trackers for our normative specifi catiosn looking like our accessibility tracker. As necessary, we will check on our deliverables whether someone has filed an issue on us that we don't know about.
Matthew_Atkinson: I think I've got the link for the Personalization one - I'll put it in as we go along.
janina: RQTF: Lionel: they posponed CAPTCHA.
janina: SAUR is nearing completion. All of the issues with timed text are now cleared though the latest deraft does not reflect that. Oncce that latest draft is up to date, I will send a request to TimeText asking for a joint publication.
janina: And also if we should advance this to a W3C Statement.
janina: CAPTCHA will be a little messier, a little more controversial, but will basically go through the same steps before publication.
Joshue108: On Natural Language User Requirements. We were discussing the input from COGA which we will work through and categorize in teh coming weeks. That was good.
<Matthew_Atkinson> Here's the link to the Review comment tracker specific to Personalization's Content module: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: One of the things I want to stress is that there seems to be more issues than we are aware of but that may just be an administrative issue with them not being closed properly on the other side. This is the tracker for personalization.
Lionel_Wolberger: Personalization: there is a great flurry of work around the extion which renders symbols and thanks Matt and Janina and Lisa form COGA for putting all the time into it that they did.
Lionel_Wolberger: The only objection I know about is the internationalization objection.
Lionel_Wolberger: We are also discussing new short names for the modules.
Lionel_Wolberger: We reconsidered how we work with COGA. The chairs wil be more in coordination anbd more often in contact with each other.
Matthew_Atkinson: If we close an issue that someone has an objection to (the closing, that is), they can just open it again.
FAST Update
Joshue108: We have had some conenction cordination requests with the A11y for children community group and Michael will be updating us on next week's call.
Joshue108: We will try to work out other things from that perspctive we want to include on FAST.
Joshue108: We are taliking about turning a draft document of potential user needs into a series of user outcomes, functional outcomes.
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
janina: Since Michael is not here, let me vamp a little.
janina: There will still be guidelines in Silver. The outcomes will be descirbed in more detail and this is what they are talking about in terms of the user needs defined as outcomes.
janina: It is still ab it unclear if the outcomes will be normative or informative, the latter is preferred at the moment (the updating will be far easier then).
janina: I will also point to methods which get very specific for different kinds ofr technologies in different environments.
janina: So guidelines -> outcomes -> methods.
janina: There is also an idea to database this: tell the application to see only methods or outcomes pertaining to developers or other roles we may end up defining.
Matthew_Atkinson: So, tailoring it to the audience.
Matthew_Atkinson: I donä't think anyone of tus is in a position to interpret the Github stuff which Michael can decipher.
janina: Let's skip the mIchael sectionentirely.
Actions Checkin (Specs) https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/open
Matthew_Atkinson: Michael did his action, including an e-mail about it on list. He suggested closing that review of Web Platform Design Principles with no comment.
<janina> trackbot, close 2315
<trackbot> Sorry, janina, I don't understand 'trackbot, close 2315'. Please refer to <http://
<janina> trackbot, close action-2315
<trackbot> Closed action-2315.
<janina> trackbot, close action-2316
<trackbot> Closed action-2316.
New Charters Review https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Horizontal+review+requested%22
Web XR -- Josh https://github.com/immersive-web/layers/issues/278
Joshue108: I did reply to Rick about XR Layers. I asked him what "normal" means. He replied to say that this meant "normal" layers versus "time warp" layers in XR Layers.
Joshue108: They closed the issue in Github. There is some issue I had some problem seeing where the change is or was. That is where we stand now.
Matthew_Atkinson: I have a thought. I don't think the meaning of your question was understood. The response was about the technical effect of what has been done. It seems that the clarification you got was just reiterating the technical solution, not speaking ot the choice of language.
Matthew_Atkinson: We did discuss, last week, that we are a bit concerned about "regular" vs "irregular". I t doesn't look like we've had the discussion with them about this. Wjhether we try again to clarify that we are talking aobut the terminology as oppposed to the technology, I don't know if that helps.
Joshue108: Right now, I don't see the gain in this. I'm happy for someone else to take this route if they feel strongly about it.
Matthew_Atkinson: It's a bit like finding a problem where there may not be one. The only thing that I'm wondering is, and I think this was discussed, would it be W3C house style to say "primary" and "alternate", and if so, wouldn't it be good to fit with house style as early as possible?
janina: I wouldn't fall on my sword over this. "Primary" or "alternative" isn't really locked in formally. We have gotten a bit picky on terms recently. W really need to clean up our cultural context. It is a bit of a nit.
janina: I could write them a polite note informing them that there could be interpretations into a negative way and that this may be avoided, offering examples as an alternative.
Joshue108: I can forward that information on to you.
Other Business
Dangling Spec Review Cleanup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Category:Spec_Review_Assigned
Matthew_Atkinson: The two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation and off-by-one errors.
<janina> http://
<Matthew_Atkinson> ^ Alas the above quote is not an original of mine :-)
janina: A reminder of a link you should all have bookmarked - a pointer to your actions and no one else's. It is for all groups you are involved in, to the extent your groups are using trackers and not all on Github.
Matthew_Atkinson: Helpful!
Matthew_Atkinson: Nine minutes back.