IRC log of rqtf on 2023-12-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:29:32 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rqtf

13:29:36 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-rqtf-irc

13:29:36 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

13:29:37 [Zakim]

please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jasonjgw

13:30:02 [jasonjgw]

meeting: RQTF meeting

13:30:13 [jasonjgw]

present+

13:30:18 [jasonjgw]

scribe+

13:30:23 [jasonjgw]

chair: jasonjgw

13:30:26 [jasonjgw]

agenda+ Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements.

13:30:26 [jasonjgw]

agenda+ Miscellaneous updates and topics.

13:50:31 [Roy]

Roy has joined #rqtf

13:54:01 [Roy]

Roy has joined #rqtf

13:59:32 [janina]

janina has joined #rqtf

13:59:36 [janina]

present+

14:02:19 [scott_h]

scott_h has joined #rqtf

14:03:44 [Roy]

present+

14:03:48 [DavidSwallow]

DavidSwallow has joined #rqtf

14:03:51 [DavidSwallow]

present+

14:04:18 [scott_h]

present+

14:04:45 [janina]

zakim, who's here?

14:04:46 [Zakim]

Present: jasonjgw, janina, Roy, DavidSwallow, scott_h

14:04:47 [Zakim]

On IRC I see DavidSwallow, scott_h, janina, Roy, RRSAgent, Zakim, jasonjgw, kirkwood, gb, alastairc, Rachael

14:05:01 [janina]

scribe+

14:05:11 [JPaton]

JPaton has joined #rqtf

14:05:24 [jasonjgw]

zakim, next item

14:05:24 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements. -- taken up [from jasonjgw]

14:06:18 [janina]

jasonjgw: Noting issues 58 & 59 closed with comment.

14:06:30 [jasonjgw]

Janina: plans to review the document in case of modifications that can be made to take further account of COGA issues.

14:07:49 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Taking up issue 55 ...

14:08:30 [jasonjgw]

Janina: notes our remit is Web applications; desktop applications are out of scope.

14:09:00 [DavidSwallow]

#56: In the first paragraph of '1.2 Distinctive features of collaboration tools', consider replacing "web application or with application software in general" with "web applications and software applications in general" as there could be several options.

14:09:01 [gb]

https://github.com/w3c/rqtf/issues/56 -> Issue 56 [not found]

14:09:10 [janina]

jasonjgw: Checking whether that's still text in the current draft ...

14:09:34 [janina]

DavidSwallow: It is still there

14:10:50 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Clarifying grammatical number issue

14:11:47 [janina]

jasonjgw: Will push the change now.

14:12:27 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Issue 54

14:14:21 [jasonjgw]

Janina: this is a matter of common interface strategy; we need to adopt conventions that have been established (common keyboard commands etc.). Having an example would be useful.

14:15:37 [jasonjgw]

Janina queries what the proposed example amounts to - that right-click should - should not - invoke a context menu?

14:16:24 [janina]

[Group is inclined to accept in a general way, but the example doesn't seem the best example.]

14:17:25 [janina]

DavidSwallow: issue 53

14:17:42 [janina]

DavidSwallow: A bit like Content Usable in issue 59

14:17:57 [janina]

s/content usable/Content Usable/

14:19:24 [jasonjgw]

Janina: inclined to accept, but the reference should be to WCAG 2.2.

14:19:56 [jasonjgw]

Janina: we can only normatively refer to/require what is in WCAG 2.2.

14:20:21 [janina]

[we accept with above amendments]

14:21:06 [jasonjgw]

Janina suggests Content Usable is a suitable reference for the bibliography.

14:21:47 [janina]

jasonjgw: Will take the action

14:22:46 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Issue 52

14:23:28 [DavidSwallow]

"For collaboration tools that also allow document editing, editing tools/collaboration tools should be available, as well as a view, in a method that is very familiar to both document editors and collaborators."

14:24:22 [janina]

scott_h: Wonders whether this relates to standard interaction paradigms as we discuss

14:24:47 [janina]

scott_h: obviously, getting a browser to mimic desktop behavior is tricky at best

14:26:27 [janina]

jasonjgw: What's familiar to one could be unfamiliar to someone else. So, gating on "familiar" is problematic.

14:27:00 [janina]

janina: Suggests a few examples might help us tease out the design pattern COGA is thinking of

14:27:31 [janina]

DavidSwallow: 51

14:27:58 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Add new section after "Suggested Changes" sections

14:28:12 [janina]

DavidSwallow: Make discovering permissions straight forward

14:28:29 [janina]

scott_h: Broadly supportive of this

14:28:42 [janina]

jasonjgw: Also inclined to accept, but not sure it belongs there

14:28:49 [janina]

janina: Or as its own section?

14:29:54 [janina]

jasonjgw: multi-user access controls

14:30:59 [janina]

scott_h: Agree it's just discovery and should be easier to do

14:31:39 [janina]

jasonjgw: Worried about varyingpermissions across sections/parts of a document

14:32:34 [janina]

janina: That only escaltes need to discover accessibly what permissions pertain at current focus locus

14:33:14 [janina]

scBeing able to identify

14:35:50 [janina]

~.

14:35:55 [janina]

ssh opera

14:36:13 [jasonjgw]

Jason: worries that a requirement mentioned in an introductory section but not in the main text will be overlooked.

14:36:50 [janina]

present+ scott

14:37:08 [janina]

scott: Inclined to say it does belong in this list

14:37:51 [janina]

janina: Yes to putting in this list, but expounding on access control section elsewhere in the document as well

14:38:57 [janina]

jasonjgw: Will take up an access control section and then enumerate something in this intro list

14:39:52 [janina]

DavidSwallow: issue 50

14:40:04 [janina]

DavidSwallow: A sentence about reviewing history

14:40:38 [DavidSwallow]

"The ability to review history easily can be especially important for people who need to remember how something happened or changed."

14:45:43 [janina]

[disposition is that a better explanation of what's missing from version control could go elsewhere in CTAUR, but this section is an introductory scoping section only, not feature explanatory]

14:46:10 [janina]

jasonjgw: Actioned to close with comment

14:46:55 [janina]

DavidSwallow: issue 49

14:48:07 [DavidSwallow]

"Use plain language names for each feature or process. Example: Using words like "fork" do not describe the feature using concrete language related to the task. Use chat instead of IRC."

14:48:09 [janina]

DavidSwallow: plain lang -- but seems out of place for the same reasons

14:48:43 [janina]

janina: plain to who? The audience is developers, not Joe Sixpack

14:48:53 [janina]

jasonjgw: Yes

14:49:22 [janina]

jasonjgw: if you don't use the expected term, your meaning can be lost

14:49:40 [janina]

scott: Agree--We ran into this in RAUR.

14:50:48 [janina]

janina: Yes this is about introducing COGA reqs, but the audience is developers who expect certain terminology

14:52:11 [janina]

[we do not accept as described above]

14:52:16 [janina]

jasonjgw: Action close with comment

14:53:23 [janina]

scott: Notes some good info in recent plan lang standard

14:55:24 [janina]

jasonjgw: topic:

14:55:35 [janina]

COGA asking for RQTF research process documentation?

14:55:43 [janina]

scott: I wrote a draft but we had no comments

14:55:54 [janina]

jasonjgw: Exactly. It didn't go further because no comments

14:56:26 [janina]

janina: Need to find the link

14:57:04 [jasonjgw]

zakim, end meeting

14:57:04 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been jasonjgw, janina, Roy, DavidSwallow, scott_h

14:57:07 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

14:57:08 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/06-rqtf-minutes.html Zakim

14:57:15 [Zakim]

I am happy to have been of service, jasonjgw; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye

14:57:15 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rqtf

14:57:54 [janina]

janina has left #rqtf