Agenda for Jan 5 meeting

[foolip]

Here's the agenda for our meeting on Thursday, Jan 5:

• Dashboard design
• Confirming date for launch

Yep, that's it.

Previous meeting: #257

[nairnandu]

Attendees: @bkardell @dandclark @foolip @jensimmons @jgraham @meyerweb @nairnandu @nt1m @rachelandrew @una

Notes

• Dashboard design

  • [jensimmons] Presented the 2023 dashboard design
  • [jgraham] LGTM. Added one comment in the doc.
  • [foolip] LGTM
  • [meyerweb] For mobile?
  • [jensimmons] Included and source order is defined in the doc. We should think about and test accessibility.
  • [una] signifying the new items would be a good addition to the dashboard. Makes it clear what browsers (combined) are focusing on this year. Areas where we continue to invest vs new ones.
  • [jensimmons] we could use blog posts to tell that story
  • [rachelandrew] could we tag the focus area with a year label? Or a filter at the top?
  • [jensimmons] are we giving the impression that we put more focus on new areas?
  • [una] # of tests would be an interesting thing to show. % masks the volume of tests for some areas
  • [nt1m] The nature of the feature will determine the tests and that # alone would not necessarily show the maturity we achieve
  • [jgraham] Focus areas are what we actively work on. We should not have different graduating mechanisms

• Moving previous years' focus areas

  • [foolip] proposal added
  • [bkardell] goal of 25 for easy scoring?
  • [foolip] Yes, that’s the idea. Does not need to be a gating factor.
  • [jgraham] We should have a fixed # of focus areas going forward. At the proposal selection time, we should decide which ones we are carrying forward and how many “open” slots we have.
  • [jensimmons] The ones that we are leaving out from 2022 only have a small set of test failures
  • [jgraham] Need some more internal discussions about some areas (sticky positioning as an example)
  • [jensimmons] we can move it forward if there is a decision to keep it active
  • [nt1m] Typography - font detection - shouldn’t that be moved forward?
  • [foolip] we had talked about moving that to a separate area in one of the previous meetings
  • [jgraham] +1 to making it a new focus area
  • [foolip] Forms - adding vertical forms and border image. Both of these needs discussion
  • [bkardell] It is unlikely that we will get to 100% for whatever reason. A focus area should not stay on the list forever, even if there is only one failing test
  • [jensimmons] when adding new tests to an existing focus area vs creating a new area - we have to factor in the # of tests being added.
  • Decisions:
    • No opposition for adding vertical forms in Forms.
    • inert - becomes its own focus area
    • Pending decision on border-image

• Confirming date for launch

  • Tabled for next meeting

Action items

• label tests for areas that need further discussion (border image and web compat)
• All teams to review focus areas internally for final decisions

[stof]

is it expected that the 2 documents referenced in the meeting notes are not public ? It makes those meeting nodes quite opaque for people that look at this issue.

[nairnandu]

Thank you @stof for calling that out. It might have been premature to include that link in the notes, since most of the content is in flux. The core outcome would be made public with the Interop 2023 announcement