Meeting minutes
SH: Welcome everyone
great to have you all here
Please do mention names before you speak for interpreter
Proposed upcoming joint meeting - planning and discussion.
SH: We are looking at a joint meeting with COGA
JS: Its in two weeks
<Janina gives background>
JS: Last time we were at odds over one of our previous documents
Lisa asked for a chat regarding how we go about research etc
JS: This seemed like a reasonable thing
The AGWG chairs have also asked to participate and asked some of the Low Vision TF to get involved
There will be other groups
Rachael, AGWG chair - suggested creating a simple overview document
This group has the best in terms of academic research - there are others in COGA and elsewhere, who have access to Uni libraries and databases etc
We should prepare, agenda etc
The proposal is for this time, in two weeks on Jan 25th
SH: Any other comments?
SH: Regarding the one pager is this something they want before the meeting?
SH: Not a burdensome task etc
Whatever structure they like we can do
JS: We can ask others to review and make sure it captures their view points etc
SH: Its good that its on the same time
<discussion on timezones>
SH: I did want to raise something - about channels or options for people to submit issues
I've expanded on this in the Collaboration doc
Do we still want to emphasise Github? Or talk about other options.
JS: I think they are interested - we will be talking about this on the 25th
We need to be patient and allow for a small set of acceptable formats etc
In the AAC symbols candidate REC, we applied these principles
One issue, or one email per comment
JOC: +1 that would be a big help
JS: If we give people a Google doc, you can get boxes that force organisation - that could be encouraging
RK: Question about Rachael in AGWG
JS: Getting back to process
We are developing an agenda - how we do things, share comments etc
JS: The last thing, is at what point do we need review from sister groups in WAI
JS: Publication should not be help up as comments come in.
JS: Last call etc needs to be informally presented - as it is useful only for addition comments
MC: I can add something here.
Last call was replaced by wide review - same thing really
There is a need for others to check this work, even up to the last
so we need to be careful
MC: Its good to have lists of things that can be sorted out, in time lines that are sensible etc
JS: Referring to that agreement is good.
JS: My issue is when we invite for early look, and review but we get nothing
MC: Lets discuss on the WAI co-ordination call
SH: I understand the need for this process
LW: Still early days on the privacy credentials work, do you agree?
SH: Yes
LW: Ok
JS: this is useful for us to review what is in our work statement
This group doesn't do normative deliverables but we have a series of user needs documents, and having a list of future work, that would be helpful
JS: APA is rechartering
Our current charter expires in July this year
We need to look at what we may accomplish in the next two years
APA would like to get this done in Jan
JS: We expect edits and questions etc - this will go to a vote in the AC
Last charter timeline was tight last time
JS: Lets look at this next week
Jason is back then also
JS: Comments?
SH: Lets discuss next week
SH: Janina you raised this on WoT?
JS: Yes, a big topic
APA does horizontal review, and we have been reviewing their WoT docs and meeting with them etc
We helped them identify the 'Middleware' piece that helps drive many devices and AI
The configuring app can be a very inaccessible process - they didn't object this this idea
Another topic is failure recovery - things happen when things stop working.
JS: Where I work an accident brought down wiring but a lot of the county had no power.
<Janina gives more detail on the restarting by hand, rebooting of domestic appliances etc>
Failure recovery or return to operability is not automatic - and needs to be managed better
APA reviews W3C specs - and were asked to review the WoT architecture
We got our best minds on the topic - Gottfried Zimmerman did his Phd in this area
and we asked him and his students to review these WoT docs
There are potential additions - failure recovery is not listed
They are proposing an a11y considerations statement
Gottfried says most engineers will read the docs that tell them what to build
This is a good argument - we have editing to do before we sign off on this WoT architecture
Finally, there is Matter - a standard from FIDO which may do away with this middleware
There are no devices I can find - we need to talk with them
SH: Is Matter looking at centralising the middleware across platforms?
JS: Yes, Google Apple and MS are supporting
<Lionel_Wolberger> A link to matter, https://
SH: Comments?
JOC: If there was any update on the user needs and requirements piece since I've been away?
SH: Don't think so.
JOC: Could be worth following up on when Jason gets back.
<janina> https://
SH: Lets do that.
SH: Are those docs ready that we can provide feedback on?
JS: APA needs RQTF help with this - we should reachout to them promptly
JS: Links are in that doc
JS: The only new thing since Josh left us - is failure recovery
JOC: I like that, its comprehensive and does what it says
JS: Its a thing
Could be a real problem for some folks
SH: Recovery expectations can differ - and the steps may not be clear
SH: Can we do this next week?
JOC: I like Scotts recovery expectations is a great abstraction and a useful discussion point for that doc
SH: In terms of Collaboration tools there is only one comment
JS: Yeah, we didn't get much
We should have another stab at this
I think there are more things that people will want to say
JS: How can we get more coverage, we could reannouce it etc
SH: COGA also said they had things they wanted to share.
SH: Think its not in a state to progress yet
MC: The messaging maybe isn't clear about the scope of the document
It is more than just Zoom stuff - so more examples that draw people in would be good.
JS: Yeah, this could help the industry fix things we don't like
Its not so much RTC type stuff - like shared editing etc
SH: People could have gotten the wrong idea
Lets discuss next week with Jason
JS: Yeah, it is rather general
MC: We can improve it - a less technical summary would be helpful
JS: I'll have a go at the intro
JS: Plain language
SH: Any other projects to mention?
JS: We did have the Natural Language interfaces document
You should look at GPT!
SH: No updates since the last meeting
JS: ETS wanted something like this in our pipeline
JS: Lionel would say play with this in openai.com
<discussion on GPT>
JS: GPT could have interesting implications for AAC etc
SH: Anything else to discuss?
RK: I was playing with Astro - Robotics security service from Amazon
Not at all accessible, there is a lot of spoken interaction
There are visual interactions also
JS: We may have another user requirements document - if user needs and modes of interaction are not being served?
JS: May be media - but maybe not just that.
MC: Some of the *aur docs could use updating
*aur could be topic in itself
+1 to Michael
JOC: The whole concept of multimodality isn't understood so this is a good idea- having a baseline doc that is tech agostic could be fitted to multiple technologies