<LisaSeemanKest> do we have a call now?
<sharon_> Yes
<janina> OK
<scribe> scribe: becky
<sharon_> scribe: becky
<sharon_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/content-janina/content/index.html
becky: concerned about reference to auto-generated rendering in introduction
JF: Am concerned because this is very different than the edits I sent out on June 12
becky: John's edits don't seem to be in the mailing list
JF: just resent mail from Friday; Will need to review this new language as it is different from the one I made edits to
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Jun/0019.html
discussion of timing of messages - both JF and Janina made updates
Janina: concerned about people missing some of the posts coming on lists
Sharon: Janina has changed abstract and introduction sections; review Janina's sections and John's edits and reconcile
<sharon_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/content-janina/content/index.html#background
Janina: edits are substantial - people should read and respond
JF: confirming where Janina made edits - abstract and introduction (all parts of those two sections)
Lisa: not all use cases are mentioned in abstract for example distractions
Janina: believe abstract should be short and sweet
Lisa: you have touched on some of the reasons for personalization but not all
Janina: believe I have covered all of our overall use cases between both abstract and introduction
JF: first 3 topics are not about
distractions
... action, destination, purpose, simplification, symbols, and
distraction but only addressing 3 in the abstract/intro
... proposes adding machine learning to part of the intro; also
want to refer different modalities
<JF> The Content Module enhances web content by providing machine-readable information about form controls, icons, and other user interface elements.
Janina: good to reference WCAG different modalities SC
<JF> plus add content referencing WCAG 1.3.5 "Output different modalities"
<LisaSeemanKest> use case : https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Use-cases
<JF> This specification is designed to enable authors to add extra semantic information at the element level about content to enable personalization for the individual user, including providing extra support and enabling user agents for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.
<CharlesL> @JF isn't 1.3.5 a WCAG 2.1 criteria? https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-input-purpose.html
Lisa: concerned that we are only referring to one use case in the abstract
JF: I think I have addressed that
in my rewrite
... can we review the word document that I made edits to
... shares screen - will start with terms; replaced "action
Using data" to "action using data-action
... other editorial changes that were repeated throughout
document; most changes within example section
... simplification (3.4.1) refereneces note about
advertisements - not sure what that means?
... this seems related to adblockers?
Janina: I don't think this was about ad blockers; but I think COGA is trying to reduce the number of adverts overall; I would be comfortable leaving out ref. to advertisements
awk becky
JF: agree - don't want to cut of revenue streams
Lisa: this note was about websites knowing stuff about you (for example, interested in women's stuff) and adjusting menus to priorities this; that is good
JF: I believe what Lisa mentioned is captured a few sentences about that refers to a context attribute
Lisa: yes, we used to have a context attribute
charles: yes, need to figure out reference to context attribute; if we know certain content is an advertisement perhaps there can be a user specific location on the page but the user can skip it
JF: suggesting that if content is tagged a specific way user agents can reposition it
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to discuss adverts
<LisaSeemanKest> good catch John!
Janina: there is also the issue
that something is related to what you are looking for rather
than the actual item you were looking for
... searching for a hub and cables get also listed - and users
can easily end up with the related item rather than the desired
one - believe this is a COGA user case
JF: I this section needs a
rewrite - I will note that so we can move on to review the rest
of doc. changes; most was formatting and spelling
mistakes
... 2 examples for data-distraction but not anything for
sensory message - we need to explain what a sensory message
is.
... above is discussion about data-distraction examples 6-8
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
JF: will rework those two
example
... Section 3.6.1 - take two sentences into 1? It feels a bit
awkward. It does seem simplistic but it also adheres to simple
writing
Lisa: perhaps merge into one sentence
JF: agrees - merge into one
sentence
... general discussion of a proposed rewrite
Janina: who benefits is the question to keep forefront of our discussions
Lisa: rewrite doesn't capture symbol to symbol translation
Janina: should capture Lisa's point about symbol to symbol translation to allow for conversations between symbol set users
Lisa: what we had originally is not captured. "The symbol attribute identifies the concept of symbols" should stay
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to speak against "indeitifies"
Janina: I don't think we are identifying concepts - perhaps exploses a user need would be better (or something similar to capture user needs)
<janina> ~q+ to follow up with lisa on where the concept is identified
Lisa: Want the first sentence as it was: The symbol attribute identifies the concept of symbols. Then address the idea of changing from text to symbols
Janina: believe identifying concepts doesn't work if you haven't defined what they are
Lisa: symbols have been defined below
Janina: but that doesn't explain it
Lisa: believe that is all in the explainer - believe that we generally describe how to use in the other modules
Janina: need to include enough for developers to build in this document. If we need to explain further have a link/reference to more details (in the explainer)
JF: the symbol attrib enables changing test to symbols for users who are unable to process text content. It also facilitates....
Lisa: it says what it is for but it doesn't say that it maps text to a concept node for a symbol.
JF: proposes: the symbol attrib enables changing text to formal symbol sets for users who are unable to process text content.
<JF> "The symbol attribute enables mapping text to formal symbol sets(*) for users who are unable to process text content. It also facilitates conversion from one formal symbol set to another, enabling users of differing sets to communicate with each other (translation). The symbol attribute accepts a numeric reference number."
Lisa: use mapping rather than changing
JF: will update the
document
... will post as a google docs as well
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/W@CAG SC 1.3.5 "Outpyut/WCAG 1.3.5 "Output/ Present: Roy becky JF CharlesL Found Scribe: becky Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/ WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]