W3C

– DRAFT –
WAI-Adapt Teleconference

28 Oct 2025

Attendees

Present
Abhinav, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, Russell
Regrets
-
Chair
Lionel_Wolberger
Scribe
Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, janina

Meeting minutes

Name-It!

<matatk> Link to minutes from last time: https://www.w3.org/2025/10/21-adapt-minutes.html#2cfc

<matatk> (which links to previous ones)

Lionel_Wolberger: FAD: Frequently Accessed Destinations (or Frequently Asked-for Destinations)
… FAC: Frequently Accessed Content (or Frequently Asked-for Content)

<matatk> janina: re the cute naming (FAC/FAD) we don't want to get confused with something else (as we could with well-known)

Lionel_Wolberger: other nouns: discoverable; standard, common destinations, waypoints, familiar, core, recognizable, WAIpoints, signposts

discoverable, standard, common, frequently

destinations, way-points,

matatk: Adjective: discoverable; standard, common, familiar, core, recognizable
… Noun: content, destinations, waypoint (WAIpoint), signpost, page, part-of-a-page

matatk: The destination is the page itself, even if the page has other items

janina: Do we agree on the 'destinations' part?

matatk: I like Common Destinations

janina: me too

janina: Though TTS things its 'candellas'

matatk: I liked FAD from last time but agree with being too cute... however CD is 'Change Directory' which is what we are doing in a way...

Lionel_Wolberger: I like FAD. It explaints itself in moments.

Abhinav: I like 'destinations'

Lionel_Wolberger: The 'cute' is not what recommends it, it is the efficacy it enables when explaining it. FAQ/FAD

Lionel_Wolberger: We agree on the noun, Destinations.

frequent, standard, familiar, common, discoverable, ... (from last time plus just now)

Lionel_Wolberger: do we need the 'accessed'

janina: I can do with or without it

Russell: CAD and SAD aren't that good

janina: I'd rather be a FAD than SAD or BAD...

janina: (boldly)

matatk: (brazenly...)

janina: we need them to be discoverable but we need to be able to enter a URI predictably

Lionel_Wolberger: negative connotations of 'common'?

Russell: The commons has a positive connotation

matatk: When we moved away from well known URIs we moved away from having a predictable URI
… we now have a predictable token
… we are facilitating discovery of URLs by means of providing tokens

matatk: the tokens are predictable (rel attr values)
… so I do not rule out discovery/discoverable

Russell: Who's the target audience/

janina: Content development community

matatk: Discoverable, Common, or Frequent are the best candidates in my opinion
… Standard seems ruled out, as they are not normative

Discoverable Destinations

Common Destinations

Frequent Destinations

Frequently Accessed Destinations

Lionel_Wolberger: Frequent isn't applicable for one user really?

matatk: But you could say that for FAQs - it's _across_ the user population - which also indicates the bar to be set for adding destinations.

Russell: FAQs - Qs we want you to ask, or are willing to provide an answer for :-)

Lionel_Wolberger: The POV of FAQ is very helpful when discussing our domain of common destinations

matatk: In 5yrs are we going to wish we had more/fewer of these? Naming sets the tone and bar. Or we just let them evolve organically anyway (as they likely will)? Discoverable sets a more permissive tone. Frequently Accessed more strict?

janina: I like the internationalised nature of what we are proposing here.

matatk: Universal Destinations?

matatk: too strong?

matatk: Not Popular Destinations

Lionel_Wolberger: Local?

matatk: Don't think needed in title - everything should be localised

Lionel_Wolberger: comes back to point of view as above

matatk: We (W3C) like to name things by what they do, rather than how they work.

matatk: Most important factor in name is what problem it solves for users.

*Group all happy with it!*

matatk: I don't think people will refer to this via its TLA (2-letter Acronym, as opposed to 3-letter) because they're only 2 letters.

Abhinav: I finished incorporating the feedback on my PR - matatk or janina, can you review?

janina: Been slammed but looking forward to reading; loved what you did last time.

matatk: (+1)

Abhinav: There was a comment from matatk about extending landmarks to aid in navigation. Wasn't sure if i should include in this same PR, or leave as-is for now.

matatk: Please could you make an issue, link to the comment, so we can refer to it later?

janina: we have 1 more meeting before TPAC. we will likely have a breakout - we prpoose it. We should prepare for it during the week and resolve what we want to do next week. Will add relevant folks as co-facilitators

TPAC Preps

janina: See above
… be sure to make Abhinav and Lionel co-facilitators
… also note USA/North America goes to -5 GMT next week (is currently -4)
… Boston time 'falls back'

Lionel_Wolberger: Do we need a deck?

janina: The focus is on synergy between the needs of MCP and DDs
… the breakout should foster conversation regarding potential synergies
… prepare use cases, that we should explore

Lionel_Wolberger: The Explainer could be the only asset we share, to explain what DDs are (discoverable destinations)

Symbols

matatk: Unpacked the tar, and demonstrated Symbols markup

Lionel_Wolberger: Every word has a symbol!

Russell: Yes, that is typical in AAC. But we can markup less

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

All speakers: Abhinav, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, Russell

Active on IRC: Abhinav, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, matatk, Russell