Meeting minutes
<Github> https://
Plans for Sept.
Lionel_Wolberger: There's a run of Mondays in September where we won't be meeting for various reasons.
Lionel_Wolberger: Labor Day (5th); TPAC (12th); rest week following TPAC (19th).
<CharlesL> I will be at TPAC in person.
Lionel_Wolberger: *asks for objections; none received*
Lionel_Wolberger: Thus we agree to not meet those three weeks.
Lionel_Wolberger: There will be a lot of Adapt activity at TPAC.
TPAC 12-16 September 2022 preparations
Lionel_Wolberger: TPAC is Technical Plenary and Advisory Committee meetings. Excellent place to move work forward.
Lionel_Wolberger: Look at the APA schedule; APA has a lot of meetings; Adapt is covered in many of these.
https://
Lionel_Wolberger: It'd be helpful to have a run down of what Adapt expects at TPAC. We have work with CSS, Verifiable Credentials. Also interest in i18n.
janina: Also the TAG... we received an invite and are following up with them.
janina: There are some issues they raised with respect to transitioning to CR, and Sharon did a lot of useful research to allow us to check on how we responded to those.
… Also looking at building the registry. (Following up with MichaelC and Russell regarding the nature of the spreadsheet that can be used as the basis.)
janina: TAG is important for all the work we're doing—registry too, as it's a new vehicle.
JF: TAG = Technical Architecture Group
CharlesL: With the Registry, should we reach out to Ralph, who is the technical person behind the website, in addition to TAG?
MichaelC: We'd loop Ralph in on the transition request to publish it. There are other technical people who're on the front line too.
Lionel_Wolberger: There will also be joint meetings with APA and COGA; what's Adapt's role there?
janina: We're not yet fully aware of COGA's agenda, though there is a 3-way meeting with AGWG and COGA first thing on Monday. This will cover Functional Needs, as COGA wanted to discuss this.
janina: I asked for other agenda from COGA.
MichaelC: We may not have COGA facilitators present; we are following up about whether this can go ahead on the APA planning call.
janina: I'll speak with COGA tomorrow.
Lionel_Wolberger: Doesn't seem that Adapt is key to the currently-planned joint meeting.
janina: Yes (whilst it could be part of the solution, it's not fundamental to that agenda).
Lionel_Wolberger: Other meetings?
janina: We (chairs) are following up, re TAG.
Lionel_Wolberger: I'll be there locally. Will we have remote participation?
janina: I expect all meetings will have remote participation as an option.
Lionel_Wolberger: Will propose a breakout, and update the slides.
Matthew_Atkinson: The other part is a probably-less-than-one-minute pitch about Adapt, which we can all learn, and impart to people as-and-when the opportunity arises.
MichaelC: Not sure about the breakout schedule/proposition as of yet.
<janina> https://
Lionel_Wolberger: Shall we wear buttons (we did back in Verifiable Credentials)? What about a one-page document that we could provide to interested people?
janina: Yes to the document (no to buttons)—could use the abstract we already have. Printing it out and putting a QR code to the wiki page/the spec.
janina: If people want to set these things up, I'm sure the group would be happy for it to happen.
Lionel_Wolberger: I can print these out for the breakout session.
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we want to talk about CSS about Adapt and Media Queries?
janina: Yes; it's scheduled (on the wiki).
Lionel_Wolberger: Do we want to address the concern about the burden of authoring?
janina: I think our energies are better placed in getting the specs advanced at this point.
janina: We need the Registry to be at FPWD in order to be able to get Content to second CR.
Matthew_Atkinson: I see the concerns about authoring burden. Especially with the registry in conjunction with authoring tools, there are several ways the tools could help authors add concepts to their content. We should keep this in mind, and build on the specs later.
… It's important to keep the behavior predictable at run-time (but there's lots we can do at authoring time to raise awareness).
JF: We met at TPAC in Burlingame (2017) and there were some WYSIWYG authoring tool people there; we could approach them with ideas about this.
<JF> Web Editing Working Group: https://
Lionel_Wolberger: Should we touch base with ATAG? [Group indicated maybe, but just right now the focus is on WCAG 2.2-related work.]
Lionel_Wolberger: Anything with i18n?
janina: We've resolved our issue with them; we have other issues to discuss with them regarding other work.
Lionel_Wolberger: How about COGA?
janina: We need agenda.
Lionel_Wolberger: let Sharon and I work on this in planning.
Sharon_: +1
CfC for Content Module 1.0 CR Status
Exit criteria
Lionel_Wolberger: This was assigned to me and Matthew_Atkinson and we've been working on it.
Matthew_Atkinson: We have listed 205 possible attribute/value pairs
… we will need at least two independent implementations
… Matthew_Atkinson is preparing a test page that will offer all attribute/values to any potential test
… the exit criteria need some more work
Lionel_Wolberger: The exit criteria will express how tests will be logged, so we can see when we have achieved our exit critera.
Link to the exit criteria google doc, https://
Lionel_Wolberger: When finalized, where should we publish the exit criteria?
MichaelC: Typically we publish it as an appendix on the spec itself.
TAG response resolution
Sharon_: I did the research: https://
janina: We covered this earlier; we're as ready as we can be for the TAG meeting.
BCI
janina: We're waiting to hear back from Russell; I touched base with MichaelC on the follow-up just before this call.
<Github> https://
BCI Registry Implementation
MichaelC: I'll propose a draft document that will define the registry and its structure.
Lionel_Wolberger: We have a CSV file now.
MichaelC: Yes; the registry doc will provide required explanation around this, of the aims, structure, relevant policies.
MichaelC: Can't promise a draft before TPAC (though working on it). We should have something high-level before then.
Lionel_Wolberger: *Runs through outline*
MichaelC: If you're happy to draft the outline, go ahead. I should probably draft the structure-related parts.
MichaelC: The most important part for us is to describe the meaning of the data.