Meeting minutes
Review HTML community survey
<SueNeu> The HTML Survey https://
SueNeu: hope everyone had a chance to review the proposed survey. Here is the link again.
@ivan I added points one hour ago. A paragraphe to clarify for the community, the difference between epub2 xhtml1.1 and epub3 xhtml serialisation of html.
duga: i think we should use xhtml syntax instead of serialisation. It's minor but important. We need to be clear and avoid confusion. We already support html, it's the new syntax we are supporting now.
gautierchomel: we have to use fewer open questions or control who we send the survey to
…we should chose if we want to question technical teams and make the questions more focused
…I would choose the technical part
duga: the question is how do we distribute this survey. With modern tools we can do contextualised questions.
ivan: i would prefer it not to become a big project. contextualising would need more thought and work on logics.
ivan: the whole question is of interest and importance for technical people only. Those who produce complex epub, tools, checkers, reading systems. Target is technical people only
mgarrish: I would prefer not to limit the audience or the timeframe.
gautierchomel: the time spent to make the survey and analyze the data collected, might be better
… to make it simple
… we don't need too many people to respond
… better to be sure the right people get access to the survey
… we could each send the survey to people we know
CharlesL1: I would not differentiate workflow / ingestion. It's a duplication.
mgarrish: section 1 is suffitient to get respondent context, i agree there is no need to complex context mechanism
CharlesL1: we want to know if HTML will be used, being for creation or ingestion, and in which timeframe. It's the same question for creation workflow and ingetsion workflow.
ivan: I see the point, section 1 and 2 are about who is the respondent, the real question is only in section 3.
SueNeu: i also have questions about how we'll deal with the collected data and communicate about it.
gautierchomel: I think we should use a github issue for the tech people
we don't need to collect a lot of responses
<duga> +1 to ivan and gautierchomel
ivan: we have one simple question: what happens if we accept html syntax? Which issue will appear? Then yes, Issue tracker is probably a better tool than a survey. We don't need details, only raising the potential issues.
CharlesL1: agree with simple large question.
<CharlesL1> example for the question: "How strongly to you agree/disagree with the addition of HTML Syntax addition: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree."
mgarrish: also to ask, if you don't plan to implement, why? Instead of checkbox, we need to understand the why Yes or No.
duga: Interesting idea, a one quetsion survey because no one knows for today. Maybe we'll need a bigger and detailed survey later. Not sure github is a good place anyway, it could end up with endless phylosophical discussions. Email sounds more reasonable for now, so we can collect individual feedbacks without having comments on other people responses..
CharlesL1: thru benetech and GCA we have a mailing list. Daisy has different ones too. We can use them to send the survey.
ivan: Could someone put together those discussions and make a proposal? So we don't spend months on discussing details.
AvneeshSingh: i agree with one large question, but still a due form method seems better to me, being google or survey monkey. This way we make sure to have one only point of collect and share the results.
shiestyle: we need strong context if we don't want "no move" answers. We need to collect issues and ways to solve them.
ivan: we have wbs, a w3c form for surveys.
gautierchomel: I can make a proposal for the text part of the survey
gautierchomel: should I make the proposal text in github?
AveneeshSingh: Google docs can have accessibility issues
Task forces
digital comics
shiestyle: comics task force will meet in the next weeks. we are still discussing next steps with my co chair. I was waiting for some feedbacks from the publishing comunity.
a11y
<AvneeshSingh> See minutes: https://
AvneeshSingh: we started on may first. here are the minutes. we'll skip the 15th one and have the next 29th. We discussed new metadata and shall we make accessmodesufficient mandatory. We updated the related issues and are waiting for feedbacks on this.
AOB
duga: back to the survey text, is really the issue the right workflow? Shouldn't we make a file, a PR and comment / amend there?
ivan: yes, PR is the best way.
ivan: it's early, but we can start thinking about our face to face meeting in Kobe.
<shiestyle> Not spec repo but wg repo will be good for text: w3c/
AvneeshSingh: Kobe will conflict with daisy board. If we agree with a face to face, i would prefer in the first days of tpac. On monday or tuesday.