nairnandu
commented
8 months ago Brief notes from the meeting below:
Attendees: @foolip, @meyerweb, @nairnandu, @lolaodela, @chrishtr, @nt1m, @dandclark, @jgraham, @gsnedders
- Review and finalize the test list for proposed focus areas
- Consensus on the test list for 2024 focus areas
- Next steps for proposal responses
- Consensus on proposal responses for focus area proposals (to be published after launch next week - Feb 1st)
- Responses for investigation area proposals to be drafted and confirmed ahead of the next meeting.
- Review dashboard updates and address open questions
- Placement of focus area descriptions:
- jgraham: the reasonable thing would be to have a link to the descriptions
- bkardell: could use an accordion pattern as well. A link would be fine, but also if its at the bottom of the name or in another tab - it would be great
- jgraham: people are more likely to find it if there is a link at the top section than having descriptions at the bottom
- jgraham: under the active focus areas table, there could be a link that takes the reader to the description of the focus areas
- bkardell: could also be an info icon/link against each of the focus area names
- nt1m: we could add a column with the “i” icon
- jgraham: there is a backlog of work for the dashboard, so some of these can be added later as well
- gsnedders: Chrome and Edge being displayed on the dashboard - we did not get to a consensus on it
- bkardell: does not seem to be a blocker for launch
- dandclark: agree that it should not be a blocker
- jgraham: not convinced that we should block on it
- nt1m: in the past when I checked the differences, between Edge and Chrome, the failures were small
- foolip: Chrome is switching to Chrome Canary, for experimental and that’s one of the reasons for the change
- jgraham: its really not adding a lot of value since the Canary vs Dev delay is maybe a week? It feels like its a bit of a negative
- bkardell: On experimental, it does not matter as much.
- nt1m: Safari & WebKitGTK have even bigger differences
- tantek: Indeed, is it conveying useful information to viewers or is it not? (per Tufte) The dashboard shouldn't be about logos
- jgraham: initial impression was that there are some more tangible issues
- dandclark: for things like scrollbar there are tangible differences
- foolip: Edge team is contributing to Interop and having their work show up on the dashboard and to measure progress is important
- tantek: that is a valid point
- gsnedders: how do we make the differentiation that Edge should be included and not webKit-GTK
- bkardell: the criteria for inclusion should be more well defined
- dandclark: given the history of our involvement, we would like to be on the dashboard as an independent entity. Agree that we should discuss the criteria for inclusion in the dashboard going forward.
- bkardell: if Igalia brought up the case for inclusion of Webkit-GTK, how would we have a discussion about it?
- gsnedders: I was referring to GTK as an example, we should absolutely define the criteria before we review case-by-case
- jgraham: if you can build a general purpose web browser using GTK, then it makes sense to show up here. In general, signal to noise ratio would be a concern. We do not want to have multiple browsers with the same Interop scores.
- foolip: if we want to have more participation, we should try and find a way for it.
- nt1m: as a criteria - what’s useful to communicate to web developers
- jgraham: as I said before - for criteria, we should think about the case when we have multiple browsers with the same scores. One of the main criteria should be that a new browser on the dashboard is creating an impact on the Interop score.
Here is the proposed agenda for Jan 25th, 2024