Wide review tracker

[ghurlbot]

Update 2022-11-08: @anssiko repurposed this @ghurlbot generated stub comment into a wide review tracker.

About

This is a meta issue to track wide review for the Multi-Screen Windows Placement API. The wide review expectations were initially discussed at TPAC 2022.

An important part of wide review is horizontal review from W3C's key horizontal groups listed below in horizontal groups section. Also feedback from other stakeholders is equally important. Additional pointers are welcome via comments.

The list is based on the How to do wide review page guidance.

Legend:
🔴 Review request not submitted
🟡 Review request submitted
🔵 Review feedback received
🟢 Review closed as completed

Horizontal groups

🔵 ♿ Accessibility

• Work through this questionnaire
  • Accessibility Checklist #117
• request a review via GitHub from APA - Multi-Screen Window Placement 2021-11-25 a11y-request#45
• Review feedback received Multi-Screen Window Placement 2021-11-25 a11y-request#45 (comment)
• Review closed as completed

🟢 📐 Architecture

• Ask the TAG for review; see how to work with the TAG
  • Early design review of the **updated** Multi-Screen Window Placement API w3ctag/design-reviews#602
  • Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences w3ctag/design-reviews#767 amends TAG review with considerations for API enhancement to allow initiation from a single user activation
  • Review closed as completed Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences w3ctag/design-reviews#767 (comment)
• If you are developing javascript APIs you may also want to ask public-script-coord@w3.org, a technical discussion list shared by W3C and ECMA's TC 39
  • No issues related to JS language features that should be brought to TC 39 for consideration.

🔵 🌍 Internationalisation

• Read the Request a review page
• work through the Short Checklist
  • Internationalization Checklist #118
• request a review via GitHub - Multi-Screen Window Placement 2020-11-25 > 2022-12-31 i18n-request#198
• Review feedback received Multi-Screen Window Placement 2020-11-25 > 2022-12-31 i18n-request#198 (comment)
• Review closed as completed

🔵 🔍 Privacy

• Write a "Privacy Considerations" section for your document, taking into account the Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy, Mitigating Browser Fingerprinting in Web Specifications, and RFC6973
  • Completed Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
  • Authored Spec: Privacy Considerations
• request a review via GitHub from the Privacy Interest Group - Multi-Screen Window Placement 2022-11-25 w3cping/privacy-request#106
• Review feedback received Multi-Screen Window Placement 2022-11-25 w3cping/privacy-request#106 (comment)
• Review closed as completed

🟢 🔒 Security

• Write a "Security Considerations" section for your document, taking into account the Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy
  • Authored Spec: Security Considerations
  • Explainer: Security Considerations amends spec security considerations for API enhancement to allow initiation from a single user activation
• request a review via GitHub - Multi-Screen Window Placement 2022-11-25 security-request#42
• Review closed as completed (no feedback) Multi-Screen Window Placement 2022-11-25 security-request#42 (comment)

Other stakeholders

From who to ask for review:

Horizontal reviews [...] are only a subset of a full wide review, which must also include other stakeholders including Web developers, technology providers and implementers not active in the Working Group, external groups and standards organizations working on related areas, etc.

The specification extends specifications being worked on in the following groups:

• CSS WG: Screen
• WHATWG HTML: Window
• WHATWG Fullscreen: FullscreenOptions

For details, see IDL index and terms defined by reference.

[anssiko]

@michaelwasserman @inexorabletash @louaybassbouss @tidoust I moved the wide review tracker checklist into the initial comment at the top of this issue #110 and updated it in both presentation and content. Let's keep this checklist updated and turn those lights to green one by one :-)

@michaelwasserman please check that the references marked as [x] in Privacy and Security sections of the checklist are in shape for us to request respective reviews. They don't need to be perfect, but provide enough context for the reviewers on key issues and design considerations. Both these horizontals have already received feedback from TAG, Mozilla and Apple (at TPAC) which contribute positively to these reviews (the more eyes the better).

As for Accessibility and Internationalisation, I expect these reviews to be more lightweight for this API. I'll create separate GH issues for these for us to work on related materials ahead these review requests.

As for the TAG review, or Architecture in short, we should continue work with TAG answering their questions as they progress in their review. This work is well underway.

Overall, we're ahead the expectations with respect to the wide review progress given we published the FPWD only late June 2022. Keep up the great work!

[anssiko]

(@tidoust @inexorabletash your deleted comments integrated into the checklist so we have all in one place at the top.)

[anssiko]

In the spirit of review early, review often, I have now requested reviews from all the horizontal groups. The tracker in the initial comment has been updated accordingly.

If there are substantial updates to any of these areas in review, please drop a comment here or chime in on the respective review requests (follow the links in the initial comment).

The next step for the WG is to follow up when those 🟡 turn into 🔵 and then finally turn them into 🟢 one by one when the review feedback has been addressed. My expectation is we'd get feedback by the end of this year if there are major concerns in any of these areas. If no major hurdles are identified, I expect us to be able to complete these reviews during Q1 2023.

[anssiko]

🔵 🔍 Privacy review feedback received: w3cping/privacy-request#106 (comment)

[torgo]

Hi @anssiko we're unclear as to how to proceed with the TAG review of Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - multi-screen experiences which I see is linked above. It looks like it's already shipping and according to Chrome Status there are no signals from other engines... So we're leaning towards closing with a "timed out" status. But I'd rather provide some useful feedback if we can. Can you help us help you?

[anssiko]

@torgo, the scope of the new TAG request w3ctag/design-reviews#767 is restricted to an API enhancement to allow initiation from a single user activation. The diff of related changes is outlined at w3ctag/design-reviews#767 (comment)

This request complements the now closed earlier TAG request w3ctag/design-reviews#602 The WG is not asking for a full re-review but feedback on this specific API enhancement.

The API is shipping and the WG has been made aware of significant production use. Related, we have invited a guest speaker to our upcoming vF2F w3c/secondscreen-wg#7 to share a customer story about production use of multi-screen layout in a web-based stock market tool. We will update you on any findings related to this TAG review from this production use experience.

@michaelwasserman may correct me if I omitted some important details.

[michaelwasserman]

@anssiko's comment is accurate, I also replied on w3ctag/design-reviews#767, asking whether we should open a new TAG spec review request (for the entire spec), as part of this wide review effort. Thank you both.

[anssiko]

Current status:

🟢 Architecture review closed as completed (with a suggestion to revisit before CR transition)

🟢 Security review closed as completed

🔵 Accessibility review feedback received

🔵 Internationalisation review feedback received

🔵 Privacy review feedback received

All - Please check the first comment in this issue for pointers to this review feedback and take part in the discussion to help the WG address this feedback.