- 1 Plenary Sessions and Pre-Selected Breakouts
- 2 How sessions will be chosen the day of the meeting
- 3 TPAC 2011 Session Ideas
- 3.1 Ideas for Cross-Group Plenary Topics
- 3.1.1 The W3C Publication Process is broken: lets fix it!
- 3.1.2 API Design Approaches and the Rationales for Them
- 3.1.3 How can W3C promote convergence in installable Web application technologies?
- 3.1.4 Component Model & XBL
- 3.1.5 Ensuring Privacy and Security in W3C Recommendations
- 3.1.6 Web Content Interoperability Challenges
- 3.2 Ideas for Breakout Sessions
- 3.2.1 Open Web and Web Standards Developer Education and Evangelism
- 3.2.2 Semantic Syntaxes
- 3.2.3 Open Vocabulary Development
- 3.2.4 Increasing Global Participation in W3C
- 3.2.5 Web in the World
- 3.2.6 Specification Production Ecosystem
- 3.2.7 Demos of Applications using W3C Standards
- 3.2.8 User Experience and Privacy for Microphone Access
- 3.2.9 What would make W3C more useful to developers?
- 3.2.10 Experimental specifications
- 3.2.11 Making W3C more useful for business
- 3.2.12 Building Apps in the Cloud
- 3.2.13 Advances in Social Network standardization
- 3.2.14 Feedback from the World Wide Web Foundation
- 3.2.15 HTML5 and Games
- 3.2.16 Practices for Developers on Web Privacy
- 3.2.17 The Next Privacy and Security Issues for the Web
- 3.2.18 Web Accessibility: Tips and Maps
- 3.2.19 Declarative 3D Graphics on the Web
- 3.2.20 Adjusting to today’s explosion of input methods
- 3.2.21 The W3C Publication Rules are broken! Let's fix them
- 3.2.22 Where the Web and TV are Headed
- 3.2.23 Web-based Digital Signage
- 3.2.24 Merging video element from HTML5 and SVG
- 3.2.25 Publishing and Linking on the Web
- 3.2.26 An End to End Review of the On Line Media Ecology: Proposed Panel Discussion
- 3.2.27 Internet of Things: How the Web can enable social applications of everyday devices
- 3.2.28 Understanding the HTML Decision Policy
- 3.2.29 Measuring the Web and its Worldwide Impact
- 3.2.31 Working Group Fidelity to Schedule
- 3.2.32 Registry Options
- 3.2.33 Agile Standardization in the CSS Working Group
- 3.2.34 Web Testing
- 3.2.35 Web Identity and Crypto API Chartering Discussion
- 3.2.36 next-generation HTTP authentication development
- 3.2.37 Open Government Data
- 3.1 Ideas for Cross-Group Plenary Topics
- 4 Historial Notes
Plenary Sessions and Pre-Selected Breakouts
From among the proposals on this page the TPAC Program Committee has chosen 2 plenary sessions and pre-selected 8 breakout sessions (meaning they are guaranteed space).
- Web and TV. Chair: Mark Vickers (Comcast)
- Web Content Interoperability. Chair: Bryan Sullivan (ATT)
Pre-selected breakout sessions:
- TPAC2011/API Design Approaches and the Rationales for Them. Chair: Bryan Sullivan
- TPAC2011/Semantic Syntaxes. Chair: Ben Adida
- TPAC2011/Building Apps in the Cloud. Co-Chairs: Said Tabet (EMC) and Marlin Pohlman (EMC)
- TPAC2011/Advances in Social Network Standardization. Chair: Harry Halpin (W3C)
- TPAC2011/Web-based Digital Signage. Chair: Toru Kobayashi (NTT)
- TPAC2011/HTML5 and Games. Chair: Ted Leung (Disney)
- Revisiting how W3C creates standards. Co-Chairs: Marcos Caceres, Kai Scheppe (Deutsche Telekom)
- W3C Publications Ecosystem. Co-Chairs: Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C), Robin Berjon
The last two breakouts are the result of a merger of four proposed sessions; two related to publications process and two related to publishing ecosystem.
How sessions will be chosen the day of the meeting
TPAC 2011 Session Ideas
We encourage attendees to start brainstorming TPAC2011 session ideas in advance of the meeting, both for cross-group plenary topics and for the breakout sessions.
- session name (as a === subhead === )
- session proposer (optional: name a desired session leader, can be yourself)
- one sentence session summary
- 1+ paragraph session description
For cross-group plenary session proposals, please also provide:
- type of session: (e.g.: talk, panel, open discussion, etc.)
- additional speakers/panelists
Ideas for Cross-Group Plenary Topics
These topics should be relevant to a significant number of W3C groups. They will be discussed in plenary (09:00-10:00). If your topic is not selected by the Program Committee as one of the two plenary topics, please consider leading it as a breakout session.
The W3C Publication Process is broken: lets fix it!
Proposed by: Marcos Cáceres The W3C process requiring static version of specs to be published to /TR/ is seriously broken. The labeling of specs are CR, LC, etc. is also broken: specifications don't follow a linear path to reach Recommendation (e.g., Last Call can come after CR, and Last Call documents can go straight to PR). Standards are *living documents* and trying to version them has led to serious fragmentation in the market, confusion from implementers, and confusion from other standards organizations that use W3C specs.
Lets work together to come up with a workable solution to this problem. For a start, lets start taking Editor's draft seriously: for too long, some in the W3C community have pretended that Editor's draft have no official status, when in reality they are usually far ahead of anything in the /TR/ space. Making editor's drafts authoritative on the /TR/ space would overcome many of the problems listed above.
- +1 Tantek Çelik: I for one support an overhaul of the W3C specification process, focused more on pragmatism and implementation than on protocol and legal mumbo jumbo. The web works because in practice people code first, worry about lawsuits later. I'm willing to help contribute what we've learned with developing http://microformats.org/wiki/process
- Ian Jacobs: I suggest combining with Experimental_specifications
API Design Approaches and the Rationales for Them
- Led by: Bryan Sullivan/proposed by Ileana Leuca
What API design approaches are browser vendors seeking to promote, and what are the rationales for the choices? How can W3C help the wider Web community (including SDOs that want to Web-enable their standards-based service enablers, or extend the Web platform with new capabilities) follow a successful path to convergence with W3C? For example what are the rationales behind the following API design approaches?
- declarative (via markup language features, e.g. HTML5's <video> tag)
- XHR/REST (using HTTP scheme URLs such as in conventional RESTful Web APIs, and non-HTTP scheme URLs handled by the browser or some local system-registered URL handler)
[Robin Berjon] (My understanding based on the email was that we are to provide feedback inline — if I got that wrong please tell me and I'll fix it.) There are two completely different topics here: the one in the title and the one in the description. I would like to suggest that neither makes for a great plenary session topic. The question of work prioritisation cannot be solved in a plenary fashion. W3C is not a top-down organisation, there is no authority whatsoever that can force a given group to follow some form of release plan. The only way of prioritising a deliverable is to commit resources to provide technical solutions to its issues, edit the relevant documents, and experiment with implementations. The question of rationales and design decisions is certainly interesting, but I don't believe that it can usefully be debated in a plenary fashion either. It would be very useful to describe the tradeoffs one needs make between the listed design approaches, but that requires a lengthy, subtle document that does not currently exist (and is unlikely to be written between now and TPAC). In other words, it is more of a long-term TAG deliverable than a short group chat.
[Bryan Sullivan] Corrected the title... and I agree that a TAG deliverable would probably be a useful result but we need to start a dialog on this with SMEs now, as TAG deliverables are long-term and our need to effectively collaborate on API designs is short-term, e.g. affecting our ability to deliver specifications from DAP.
[Frederick Hirsch] See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0002.html
[Bryan Sullivan] A draft session discussion outline is available at http://bkaj.net/w3c/TPAC-2011-API-Design-Patterns.html. Suggestions for inclusion in this outline are welcome. The intent is to have an interactive discussion, so the outline is brief, but other key aspects to consider or API design approach examples/pros/cons are welcome.
How can W3C promote convergence in installable Web application technologies?
- Proposed by: Ileana Leuca
How can we harmonize the objectives, approaches, and capabilities of supporting installable Web applications via:
- W3C widgets
- HTML5's AppCache
- Vendor-specific packaging/manifests, e.g. as used by Google Chrome Web Apps and Firefox Web Apps.
[Robin Berjon] I agree that applications is one of the very big topics and strongly support having a session on this topic. However, I feel that the approach proposed here is far too restrictive for a plenary session. There are now more groups in W3C working on application-related technology than I can quote off the top of my head, and that's not speaking of listing all of their deliverables. I would suggest that we could usefully have a broad session that would try to cover the full landscape not at all in depth but at least trying to capture its breadth.
[Bryan Sullivan] This specific topic could be part of a larger discussion on the effect of fragmentation on the Web applications market, and how to address it for key use cases such as installable Web applications. But it is an important topic for any initiative or service provider that is trying to build a business based upon installable Web application technologies.
Component Model & XBL
Discuss how to move forward with the Component Model, a proposed replacement for XBL.
Ensuring Privacy and Security in W3C Recommendations
- proposed by: Nick Doty
W3C has recently formed Working Groups and Interest Groups around security and privacy topics, but what about the many privacy and security issues that crop up in the many other specifications at W3C? Would a "Security Considerations" or "Privacy Considerations" section work for us? Would you like a group of experts to call on to help review privacy/security issues? Tools, checklists or guidelines for reviewing your own specifications for issues?
Web Content Interoperability Challenges
- Proposed and Led by: Bryan Sullivan
- There is a somewhat accurate perception among developers, that developing for the Web (especially for mobile devices) is freakin' hard, compared to developing for native platforms.
- Web content interoperability issues are often at the core of developer difficulties.
- Web content interoperability will greatly affect the potential of HTML5-based app ecosystems which target a wide diversity of devices and service contexts.
- Such interoperability issues are a key inhibitor of the Web applications market, even without the performance and high-end graphics limitations of current Web user agents compared to native applications.
- W3C is taking steps to address Web browser/content interoperability challenges, through the Web Testing Activity, which will include a combination of tactical focus on test documentation, test production, and testing frameworks, and strategic focus on the overall value of W3C testing for Web application ecosystems.
- In this manner, the immediate needs of W3C for alignment and further development of test methodology can be combined with progress toward creating a living compliance testing environment which benefits a wide diversity of needs across the Web application ecosystem, including W3C, Web user agent and platform vendors, developers and developer initiatives, service providers, and supporting services (e.g. test/certification providers).
The goals for this discussion are:
- Frame some overall objectives for Web content interoperability
- Introduce how this relates to the proposed W3C Testing Activity
- Start a dialog on how to collect key interoperability issues, ensuring participation of that all those that are impacted:
- Developers and content providers
- Web user agent and tooling vendors
- Service providers
[Vidhya Gholkar] +1 I think we need to understand what "developers" find difficult and how much can really be addressed by testing. Some of it comes down to education, knowledge base and skills. Also when it comes to content: "being everything to everybody" is a big task (i am referring to the changing fashions, devices, OSs etc etc)!
[Bryan Sullivan] A draft intro and session discussion outline is available at http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/1102-interop-bryan/. Suggestions for inclusion in the discussion are welcome, especially any input on key content interoperability issues faced by developers.
Ideas for Breakout Sessions
Breakout sessions can cover a wide range of issues: technical issues, cultural issues, future work ideas, presentations of work, etc.
Open Web and Web Standards Developer Education and Evangelism
- Proposer/Leader: Molly E. Holzschlag
- Type of session: discussion
One of the recently emerging roles across companies, organizations and businesses worldwide is that of Developer Relations. In this role, individuals and entire teams work to educate and evangelize specific technologies as they pertain to the Open Web and Web Standards. Most browser and tool vendors have such teams, and many of us within the W3C are focused on relating internal messages to the external audiences. Open Web philosophy has an implicit goal of removing such barriers to information, and those of us within the W3C will benefit greatly from a discussion on topics such as:
- Definining the evangelical/educator role
- How do we coordinate messages across a broad range of technologies?
- Is the creation of a task force or community group between external educators and evangelists who are also working within the W3C a helpful direction?
- How do independent or underfunded leaders find support and resources to support their education goals?
- What additional activities can we brainstorm that would increase a sense of community between developers and the W3C (for example, free online workshop/talks / demos, better promotion of talks and developer relation activities via social networks, better coordination between W3C and its advocates)
- Add your ideas here, please!
- Proposer: Tantek Çelik
- Discussion Leader: Ben Adida
- Type of session: discussion
At the recent schema.org workshop, there was quite a bit of discussion of what syntax to use for adding semantic information to HTML documents from among: microdata, microformats, RDFa.
Ben Adida presented on the evolution of RDFa 1.1 and RDF 1.1 lite, and noted how RDFa has based many simplifications on microformats' syntax.
microdata itself has been evolving since it was first proposed, based on use-cases provided by RDFa proponents.
microformats has also been evolving with microformats 2, and most recently is proposing to use the "itemref" innovation of microdata over the previous "include-pattern"
It was clear from the discussion in the room that multiple syntaxes are actively co-evolving and learning from/with each other.
If you're interested in semantic syntaxes (microdata, microformats 2.0, RDFa) this session is for you. Topics:
- How are syntaxes evolving?
- What features are syntaxes borrowing from each other?
- Is there a common (JSON?) data model that syntaxes are converging on?
Open Vocabulary Development
- Proposer/Leader: Tantek Çelik (but willing to defer to Dan Brickley or R.V. Guha)
- Type of session: discussion
How to best do open vocabulary development
- The microformats community has been using the microformats process and slowly but solidly developing about a couple of vocabularies a year (recent successes: hRecipe, hReview-aggregate)
- The microdata community has mostly re-used well-used microformats vocabularies (hCard, hCalendar), and proposed a "Works" vocabulary.
- Google's Rich Snippets proposed data-vocabulary.org where slightly changed versions of microformats vocabularies were published for microdata and RDFa
- schema.org (Google, Bing) introduced 150+ new vocabularies
Which of these (or combination thereof) is right/best and why?
Can we work together to incorporate various communities needs and produce a common place/way for rapid open vocabulary development that's not just dominated by large companies?
Increasing Global Participation in W3C
- Proposer/Leader: Ann Bassetti (anyone else want to lead? or co-lead? eager to share)
- Type of session: discussion
What more can we do to help people participate comfortably with W3C? What are the barriers or inhibitors and how can we reduce them? Who else wants to participate and can't? Is the English requirement a problem? Are the cost of travel or long-distance calls a problem? Are there cultural differences we should be aware of? Please add to this list & come to the session!
[Debbie Dahl] I thought about this proposal when I went to add my proposals and found the warning text, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." I think this kind of language could be off-putting to people from cultures where merciless editing of other people's writing is considered disrespectful. That might well be an example of a cultural difference that we should be aware of.
[Ann Bassetti] Good catch, Debbie! I bet that warning text is in the MediaWiki software -- not put in there by the W3C staff. I assume that statement is typical American geek goofiness, trying to be funny. I think it is simply a warning that the whole point of a wiki is collaborative editing. Thus, whatever you contribute may be changed, so you should not feel badly if it is. At the same time -- YOU can change someone else's work. I hope W3C participants will not be scared off nor insulted by that message, and that we will all help each other become comfortable with these new modes of working together.
[Debbie Dahl] I'm sure you're right that this is just trying to be funny and warn contributors that their edits might be changed. My point is that not everyone is going to be clued into this kind of humor, especially people from non-American cultures. I think this is the kind of thing we should look out for.
Web in the World
- Proposer/Leader: Debbie Dahl
Not so long ago, the only intelligent device in existence was a traditional desktop computer. The only way to interact with the Web was to sit at a desk in a fixed location. Now the Web is not just accessible from your desk, but, increasingly, the Web is available out in the world, either through mobile devices or through devices present in the environment. Sophisticated processing capabilities are available in many devices, most notably mobile phones and tablets, but also in cars, televisions, and household appliances. These new environments also connect with a rapidly increasing array of sophisticated capture devices, such as biometrics, scanners, and medical sensors. This session will discuss how existing standards can be used to support the Web in the world and what new standards are needed.
Specification Production Ecosystem
- Proposer/Leader: Robin Berjon
There are many tools available to editors but they are often insufficiently known by their potential users. They also tend to duplicate features that could probably be shared (e.g. a references database). Furthermore, there have been a number of proposals (and at times implementations) for improvements to the way in which specifications are currently marked up, for instance to share more detectable semantics for specific structural items (warnings, notes...) or to make testable assertions extractable. The idea behind this session is to bring those who are interested in improving this ecosystem together, irrespective of their chosen tools, in order to share ideas and see if improvements may be made.
Demos of Applications using W3C Standards
- Proposer/Leader: Debbie Dahl
This session would invite both implementers of W3C standards as well as developers who use the standards, to showcase creative, innovative, and useful W3C standards-based applications and explain how W3C standards made their applications possible.
User Experience and Privacy for Microphone Access
- Proposer: Cullen Jennings, Leader: Not Me
Yes, browsers are going to be able to access your microphone and send the resulting media somewhere. The question is how to generate a reasonable level of security and privacy while at the same time having a user experience that is not awful. The idea of the session would be to bring together many of the people of that have thought about this, educate the new people on ideas and experiences from the past, and brainstorm reasonable ideas of how to approach this. Hopefully we would come up with ideas on, or at least educate people on existing ideas, around what access was provided when and what could be done with the resulting media.
[Stefan Håkansson]: I think we should extend the topic to cover camera access as well.
What would make W3C more useful to developers?
- Proposed by: Ian
I would like W3C to be more useful to developers. Community Groups should provide a more welcoming environment for spec development than we've had before. What else should we do? Some ideas:
- Provide more useful documentation of "what really works on the Web". More useful might include "looks nicer" or "less geeky than the spec itself."
- Provide software vendors with tools to help automate the maintenance of up-to-date information about support for standards.
Proposed by: Kai Leader: W3C staff
One of the criticisms often directed towards W3C is being too slow. The fact that this is due to a detailed process that attempts to avoid errors or conflicts in the specifications is lost to the public at large.
Would it be possible to open specifications much earlier, allowing early and truly live implementations, to get early feedback from the community?
In part we are seeing this model with the HTML5 spec and it seems to work.
- This would/could
- allow implementers to start work with a given spec immediately
- give clear and early indications of the public interest in a spec or parts thereof
- provide rapid feedback on applicability to the intended goal
- provide rapid feedback on potential problems
- in long term increase specification quality
- Issues for discussion
- It would have to be ensured that feedback can and will just as rapidly be processed and lead to necessary changes in a spec.
- Declaration of specific stages of a spec, giving implementers a certain assurance as to its stability
- Provision of migration paths from one version to another must be mandatory
- Provision of a clear and easy to understand process for giving credit to contributors (especially from the general public)
Making W3C more useful for business
Proposed by: Kai Leader: Alan Bird, Bernard Gidon, Jeff Jaffe
I am not saying that W3C is not useful for business, but I think many don't see why that is so.
Have you noticed how most hotels have discovered their conscience for the environment?
They appeal to you, the guest, to not throw your towel on the floor, if it is not really disgustingly dirty. No mention of the fact that they, in fact, simply save money by not washing all those towels all the time.
We play along. Let them save their money. Less detergent in the environment is in fact better too.
Do business really care about standardization?
I don't think so. Not as part of their DNA.
I think they are interested in earning money, which is perfectly acceptable. If there is money to be made using standards then they are all for it.
Therefore, can we make it appealing to businesses to use standards, to work with W3C developed technology?
Can we find the "towel trick" for business?
What are the key factors that businesses have found so far?
What can we learn from that?
Is there a way to create niche markets, based on technology, that does not have to be based on proprietary technology?
If not, how can W3C help here?
The businesses who are already members have decided, for various reasons, that it is good to participate. Why? What can they tell us?
But what about the rest, the great masses out there?
Which information can we give them, which examples can be shown to make it clear that it saves you money/earns you money if you use standardized, open technology?
Building Apps in the Cloud
Chaired by: Said Tabet and Marlin Pohlman, EMC
Cloud computing is a major topic
- potential speakers: Microsoft, Cisco, Force.com, Amazon?
Cloud computing is changing the way companies procure IT infrastructure. Utility computing will also impact individual and company to company interactions.
The session will explore and highlight current effort to deliver standards-based Cloud application development environments. We want to discuss new and emerging software development methods taking advantage of the elasticity and inherent virtualization capabilities of the Cloud, social software development, and methods such as REST APIs, Mashups, etc.
We also suggest to have a panel discussion that will include application security as this is a major issue in Cloud adoption. The session will open up discussions with participants to discuss current standards activities at W3C that are relevant to Cloud and what new practical initiatives need to be explored by the membership.
Advances in Social Network standardization
Proposed by: Laurent-Walter Goix. Leader: Harry Halpin
This session would invite both authors of relevant open specifications in the area of Social Networking as well as developers to discuss their experience on implementing these specifications. The goal of the session is to bring together the widest possible set of open initiatives focused on standardizing social networks at various levels (e.g. client-server protocols, data models, server-to-server federation, end-to-end integration, mobile optimization) through talks that illustrate their specification, current issues and roadmap. Developers may be involved to showcase demos & provide feedback. Ideally a final panel would discuss specific topics (e.g. user addressing, discovery) to better understand main issues and collaboration opportunities across these initiatives.
- Status.Net/Federated Social Web
- IETF OAuth WG
- OMA MobSocNet
- +1 I'd like to see this session happen. Some concerns: Which open specifications will be discussed? What do people consider "relevant"? How much time/focus will be spent on more academic/blue-sky social network standards vs. enterprise/oligopoly driven/focused standards vs. pragmatic/real-world-web/indie-web/long-tail focused/adopted open standards? Tantek Çelik 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Feedback from the World Wide Web Foundation
Proposed by: Debbie Dahl Leader: TBD
This session would provide an opportunity for staff from the World Wide Web Foundation to talk about their feedback on W3C standards based on their experiences in the developing world or other Foundation activities.
(note from Ann Bassetti): I like this idea, Debbie! Has anyone alerted Web Foundation folks about this? We probably need to lay the groundwork, so one of them would be in attendance.
(note from Debbie Dahl. I think this would have to be one of the predetermined sessions, so that we can make sure a Foundation person is in attendance. If there's interest in having this session, I think Steve Bratt should be contacted.)
(note from Debbie Dahl) After discussing this idea with Steve Bratt, it looks like it's too early for the Foundation to have specific feedback on W3C standards from their perspective, so I'd like to withdraw this suggestion. Perhaps next year we can consider a session on this topic.
HTML5 and Games
Chaired by: Ted Leung, Disney
This session will discuss issues that arise when trying to build games using HTML5. We may also discuss formation of a Community Group around this topic. What are the standardization needs?
- sharing results of "HTML.next for gaming" workshop (to happen 24 Sept., in Varsaw)
- note that the Newgame conference is happening 1-2 Nov. in SF
Practices for Developers on Web Privacy
Proposed by: Thomas Roessler.
The Next Privacy and Security Issues for the Web
- Proposed by: Nick Doty
- Could be merged with "Practices for Developers on Web Privacy" and/or "User Experience and Privacy for Microphone Access"
What are the upcoming privacy and security issues for the Web beyond what we're already seeing today? What experiences have we had with privacy issues on mobile devices and mobile apps that would apply to new Web standards? What new security concerns should we be planning for?
- If there's interest in this session ahead of TPAC, I'm happy to reach out to some experts who could kick things off, but I suspect that the group will have plenty of new ideas to share. Nick Doty 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Web Accessibility: Tips and Maps
Proposed by: Shawn Henry, @@.
Get tips for quickly checking that you've got the basics of web accessibility covered, e.g., colour contrast, structure markup, @@. We'll do short demos of tools and techniques, provide pointers for more info, and have time for Q&A and discussion.
Declarative 3D Graphics on the Web
- Proposers: Kristian Sons, Johannes Behr, Don Brutzman
- Summary: the Declarative 3D Community Group invites other W3C groups to consider common requirements and use cases of shared interest.
- Type of session: short talk followed by open discussion
3D Graphics is an important media type that might have much greater impact on Web multimedia, benefiting both users and authors.
The Declarative 3D Community Group is building requirements for integrating 3D capabilities with other W3C technologies by defining common use cases.
This group will present common use cases that define how 3D might intersect and interact with HTML5, DOM events, CSS, SVG, GeoLocation, Augmented Reality (AR), Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) and other key working groups. Certain complex data types and computations are also of mutual interest.
We invite participation by people working in these other groups so that common ground can be defined, existing work can best be harmonized, and new requirements can be clearly identified.
Adjusting to today’s explosion of input methods
Proposed by Kim Patch
Adjusting to today’s explosion of input methods
Most of user interface development has assumed keyboard and/or mouse input. Three relative newcomers, however, promise to be increasingly important -- touch, speech and gesture. How important is it for the system to know whether the user is using touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, speech or gesture? How does a mix of input methods, whether or not each method is aware of the other, affect the browser and the user experience?
The user experience can be very different depending on input method. For instance, it’s rare for a mouse user to have a focus-related issue even when system focus is badly implemented because the mouse user automatically changes focus to mouse location simply by using the mouse. This is different for keyboard and speech users.
Another example is the single-key keyboard shortcuts that are increasingly popular for Web apps. It’s rare for a keyboard user to accidentally type more than a key or two in a situation where “a” archives a message and “n” goes to the next message, but if a speech user says a phrase in the wrong place, or if the speech system in correctly interprets a command as a phrase, several words worth of commands can be carried out instantly, and not easily reversed.
What should the browser be aware of in terms of input methods? What should the user be able to adjust to make the browser more aware? What can we do to make sure users keep the control of the system despite increasingly complicated situation with input?
The W3C Publication Rules are broken! Let's fix them
Proposed by/Leaders PLH & Ted
Publishing a document in /TR requires lots of patience and zen. We'll like to reconsider the current set of rules imposed on documents published in /TR, as well as the current set of tools used to check those rules. Note that this discussion isn't intended to change the W3C Process document which is a separate and larger topic (and proposed in a different session). if you're a Chair, a team contact, an editor, or simply a user of those documents, we would welcome your feedback on this topic.
RB: Should we merge this with "Specification Production Ecosystem"? They are quite related, and likely have an overlap in participations.
- Ian Jacobs: I suggest combining with Specification_Production_Ecosystem
Where the Web and TV are Headed
Proposed by Kaz Ashimura
- Please provide a description. Thanks! - Tantek Çelik 00:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide a proposed discussion leader. Thanks! - Tantek Çelik 00:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Web-based Digital Signage
Leader: Toru Kobayashi
Proposed: Toru Kobayashi, Shinji Ishii, Masayuki Ihara, and Craig Makino
This session will discuss issues on the Web-based digital signage that can be used in the near future, for example as effective advertising media in public spaces, personal information displays such as a tablet device and etc. In this session, use cases of digital signage in Japan will be introduced so that it stimulates the discussion about the need of standardization of the Web-based digital signage and about the requirements from technical and business viewpoints.
- Opening Talk
- Digital signage overview
- what is digital signage?
- market trends
- Use Cases
- Technical issues
- technical requirements
- Future plan
Merging video element from HTML5 and SVG
- Proposer/Leader: Jan Lindquist (but willing to differ)
- People interested in discussing: Giuseppe Pascale, Erik Dahlström
- Type of session: Discussion
There has been a lot of effort to develop HTML5 video element which has had many enhancments like timetracks, audio and media elements. SVG Tiny 1.2 also has a video element defined much earlier than HTML5. With all the effort on HTML5 what is the future of SVG's video element? Shall it be left as is, shall it be merged with HTML5's video element or other direction? It is important to clarify the direction of SVG video element to avoid misalingment. As the title suggest the recommendation is that they are merged.
Note that this topic was raised from discussions in the Web and TV Interest Group - Media Piping Task Force. Most recently it was discussed in the webTV workshop held in Hollywood. Currently the requirement highlighting this issue is "Issue - 18" under Implementation issue # 6. In order to meet the deadline this topic was raised prior to the requirement being finalized in the task force.
Publishing and Linking on the Web
- Proposed/Led by Dan Appelquist and Jeni Tennison
- To discuss Publishing and Linking on the Web
Is linking to pirated content itself a crime? Can sites restrict through policy statements your ability to deep link? Is there a right to link? The TAG has been drafting a document to provide some technical advice to legal and policy people regarding how publishing and linking on the Web works. This is a topic which straddles technical, legal, regulatory and policy issues. The idea of the session is to get some community feedback on the usefulness of this document.
An End to End Review of the On Line Media Ecology: Proposed Panel Discussion
- Proposed/Led by Janina Sajka
The HTML 5 draft specifications extensively define media support and include state of the art input a11y support from the HTML-A11Y Task Force. Other W3C specifications, such as MultiModal's Architecture & Interfaces seem relevant. So, are we done? Or, are there still gaps we need to fill in support of an accessible and "any user friendly" experience of TV (and other media) over the web that is also well-positioned to meet emerging regulatory requirements in the U.S. (and elsewhere)?
The purpose of this panel is to consider where we've adequately specified, where we've over-engineered, and where we still need specifications in support of this coming consumer, educational, and business media revolution.
- Proposed/Led by Dave Raggett
Moore's law is seeding a revolution of devices, enabling more and more of them to be able to communicate and shake off their isolation and work collectively with us humans for joint social endeavor. This session will review the kinds of devices and communication technologies involved, and how Web technologies can be used to support distributed social applications of devices as a Web of things and people, including the challenges for privacy and security. This will be an open space for participatory discussion, and you are invited to come prepared with lightening presentations and demos of actual devices.
Understanding the HTML Decision Policy
- Proposed/Led by PLH & Michael(tm)
Every so often, we keep getting questions on how operate the W3C HTML Working Group, how to react to bugs, and the decision policy. We'd like to help other individuals understanding how decisions are being made in the HTML Working Group and why it's important to understand the various deadlines assigned to the editors and group participants.
Measuring the Web and its Worldwide Impact
Proposed by: Steve Bratt Leader: Steve Bratt
The Web Foundation (http://www.webfoundation.org/) is in the process of producing a new Index which aims to quantify the impact of the Web on people and countries. Given the diverse and deep experience of people in the W3C community, we would like your feedback on the concept, the data most useful to feed into the Index, plans for integrating data to compile the Index, how we can best make the data and results openly available, etc. Here is additional background on the Web Index in hopes that this entices you, at the very least, to want to learn more ...
What is the Web Index? The Web Index will be the world’s first multi-dimensional measure of the Web and its impact on people in a large number of countries. It will result in one aggregate number for each country composed from a suite of measurements or indicator. This number will allow us to infer the extent of the Web’s contribution to the welfare of the people of that country (or the value of the Web to people), as defined by the underlying indicators. This is why the choice of underlying indicators (and data availability for around 100 countries) will be critical for the Index. The Index will look to some extent at infrastructure (e.g., fixed and mobile Internet, devices, policy, etc.). However, the most unique and valuable aspects will be its focus on Web content and activity (topics, languages, quantities, filtering, practices, demographics) and how use of the Web affects the economic, political and social fabric of each country. We are leveraging a grant from Google to start the Index, and invite other interested parties to participate.
Why compile a Web Index? We do not fully comprehend how this complex and expanding Web of (as Tim has said) "humanity connected by technology" really works. This is a risk to the creative and responsible evolution of the Web, and its ability to have an even more positive impact around the world. The Index will allow for comparisons of trends over time and across borders. It will provide indications of technical conditions that are present or not present in a country that are at least coincidental with, if not related to, the political, economic and social impact of the Web. As a result, the Web Index could be a powerful tool of analysis for policy makers and investors, allowing them to make more effective and better targeted investment strategies. The Index will raise more questions than it answers, and motivate additional research into the Web as not just a technology, but as humanity connected by technology".
Further background can be found at our Website ...
- Proposed/Led by Yehuda Katz and Paul Irish
The environments in which web app developers and web standards wonks operate in rarely overlap but everyone agrees more author input in the standards process would be welcome. Yehuda and Paul, both very plugged into the web developer community, will describe what web developers needs are, based on the results of surveys and hundreds of conversations. They will propose small potential changes to the spec process that would have enormous impact for developers. They'll also highlight what APIs and features are currently causing the most pain for developers.
Working Group Fidelity to Schedule
Proposed by : Jeff Jaffe Leader: Jeff Jaffe
AC Charters contain schedules for recommendations. Often we achieve the schedule. Often we don't. When we don't there are negative consequences including less timeliness, cost, workload, opportunity costs, and reputation costs. In this complicated area, though, it is not all negative. It is better to be a little late than to proceed with an inappropriate standard, one that lacks implementation buy-in, or one that is not interoperable.
At the TPAC Plenary, we will share some data about fidelity to schedule. The purpose of the breakout is to explore what (if any) steps should be taken to improve the situation.
Proposed by : Debbie Dahl Leader: TBD
Registry references in W3C specs are useful for several purposes. For example, the information in a registry might be outside of the spec's scope to define or it is information that might change or be extended in the future. WG's have tried various options to address the need for this kind of information. Two recent examples are from EmotionML, which needed a registry for emotion vocabularies, and the Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) which needed a registry for pronunciation alphabets. Options include (1) find an appropriate external organization such as IANA, which can be a lengthy process, and sometimes it can be difficult to find an appropriate external organization (2) including the information directly in the spec, which ties the registry information to the spec (3) host the registry at the W3C, which requires maintenance(4) produce a WG Note that defines a de facto registry, and which can be updated on a different schedule from the spec. The PLS specification used the first strategy and the EmotionML specification used the fourth. This session will discuss these options and perhaps others with the goal of putting together some suggestions and best practices for WG's who need registry information.
Agile Standardization in the CSS Working Group
Led by: Fantasai, Tab Atkins, Tantek Çelik
Presenters will share experiences from the CSS Working Group about how to maintain agility in the standards creation process within the current W3C Process.
Agile standardization additional information.
Led by: PLH, Wilhelm
Come and learn about the goals of the Web Testing activity, the W3C testing server, and how to do testing in W3C Working Groups properly. Tell us what the priorities for doing proper testing on the Web platform.
Web Identity and Crypto API Chartering Discussion
Led by: Harry Halpin, Thomas Roessler
The purpose of this session is to continue work on a charter for Web Identity and Crypto API related work at W3C.
The mission of this work is to improve the the ability of the browser to mediate high-value transactions. Use cases include identity on the web and advanced protocols between web applications. To this end, the group will provide standards around key storage and cryptographic primitives that will provide capabilities that are currently difficult to do safely on the Web platform.
next-generation HTTP authentication development
Led by: Yutaka OIWA
The purpose of this session is to introduce recent pre-WG IETF effort on fixing currently-broken HTTP-layer authentication. I would also going to present a specific proposal for really securing account authentication for the Web system, which can be used for e.g. a starting anchor for federated account managements.
Open Government Data
Led/proposed by: Hadley Beeman
Many of the world's governments have decided that their data should be a common asset, available to the world for reuse. As databases round the world are opening their doors, we're facing:
- formatting challenges (CSV, HTML, JSON, XML, RDF)
- lack of documentation for metadata
- problems of trying to reuse data in a proprietary format
- hard to communicate with host organisations
- host org linking to new versions/formats (from 3rd parties)
- varying degrees of funding, data quality and provenance
- new need for vocabularies
- semantic gap between “government speak” and data user vocab
- how linked data can make it easier to “turn the graph around” and approach the data with a different view
- open data coming from corporations and non-profits... who are in the same position; data is often re-used with government data.
This session reviewed and brainstormed approaches to some of the technical issues around using data published on the web from multiple sources.
How we plan to pre-select 2 plenary sessions and small number of breakouts
- There will be 2 "plenary" (all group) sessions and there are slots for 28 breakout sessions.
- The TPAC2011 Program Committee will select from among the proposed plenary topics, and will also pre-select a certain number of breakout sessions.
- Important dates
- 1 October: Deadline for proposals for plenary topics
- 19 October (was 12 October): Announcement of plenary topics
- 19 October: Announcement of approximately 7 pre-selected breakout sessions. These sessions will be guaranteed slots during the meeting.
- The remaining breakout session slots (approximately 21) will be chosen the day of the meeting.